Too many men suffering in silence, national health report finds (Canada)

Re:Too many men suffering in silence, national health report... by empressario on Monday November 09, 2026 @03:49PM (#50431901)

>> I'm calling it out here because it's a typical technocratic bad-faith argument that I'm personally tired of hearing.

I’m guessing you don’t have a uterus, am I right? A man doesn’t end up pregnant if the condom breaks. So don’t lecture us about your “bad faith arguments” when you’re making one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Too many men suffering in silence, national health report... by bjt on Monday November 09, 2026 @03:59PM (#50432037)

Sure, biology is not sex-blind. But the law can still be written to favor a parent that's a primary caregiver, regardless of whether that parent is male or female.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Too many men suffering in silence, national health report... by anon-3988 on Monday November 09, 2026 @05:21PM (#50433105)

I don't think a couple gets to choose who's carrying the baby for 9 months...Is the law and society supposed to just ignore that?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Too many men suffering in silence, national health report... by datsci_est_2015 on Monday November 09, 2026 @05:28PM (#50433196)

What?

Trying to interpret your comment in the best way possible, I'd say that my viewpoint is that it matters more how society treats a pregnant woman and the man that impregnated her, rather than the fact that the woman got pregnant and the man didn't.

It's probably best for laws to be dynamic to how cultural norms evolve regarding impregnation, which means unfortunately for hyperrational technocrats, it's best to pay attention to outcomes rather than focus on things like "man" and "woman". An unwed woman getting pregnant in 1940 USA is much different than an unwed woman getting pregnant in 2026 USA, for example.

[ Parent | on HN ]