UK: The silent epidemic of male suicide

5 men for every woman dead...

73% of those missing are male... (so much for all the fear mongering over snatched up women)

Shockingly horrifying facts

If statistics like this don't convince people we need the MRA movement more then we ever needed the feminist movement (considering the first women's medical school in the USA opened 100 years before second wave feminists were born - 1846 google it) I don't know what will.

Men don't seek help also because the entirety of the 'mental health' profession' is geared towards solving WOMEN'S mental health issues and often further BLAMES men for their own problems. Who wants to go to a doctor to be told that it's all their fault and they need to smarten the fuck up. Or, worse yet, just given the random new anti-depressant pill of the week and told that'll fix it right up. That shit does not work for men because men don't get the open doors and opportunities women get when they show people they are 'clinically depressed'. Men don't get bumped up the line for low income housing, or more welfare money, or funding to go back to school, or any of the shit women get when they even pretend that something is wrong. The mental heath system works so well for women specifically because women get real advantages by using it - men don't.

Plus, like the article mentions, young men are viewed very much in the light that they are what's wrong with the world, how the fuck do you want them to run to their doctors with their problems when they already feel they are the cause of all the worlds problems? Many young men don't kill themselves to solve THEIR problems, they do it because they think it will solve their LOVED ONE'S problems if they were dead. Many think they are doing the world a favor by dying.

To keep those young men alive the world needs to change big time and stop blaming them and start showing them that they are in fact valuable members of humanity.... but if the world valued young men, who'd sign up for the draft or volunteer to die in Iraq?

Unfortunately however, it is also an issue that the MRA movement often shies away from for fear of ridicule...

MRA's get called mentally ill, angry, unhappy, social deviants, bitter, etc. enough as it stands now. To bring the issue of male suicide to the forefront of the movement would open flood gates of of that kind of immature name calling criticism from pretty much every sector of society that holds any kind of power.

That's why it's the silent epidemic... because most people want to keep it that way... After all, 99% of men have never had value historically except as beasts of burden. In any other time this problem would not have been a problem at all... they'd merely declare a new war or crusade or something to send all the young men off to die in some foreign land - oh wait..

More women than men threaten suicide, but far more men than women commit suicide. In fact, in the USA, more men and boys commit suicide than all homicides, both sexes, at least in recent years. Surely that is worth more than concern about MRAs being called names. If nothing else, I would think that publication of this fact, and the fact that men are the majority of victims of homicide and violence, would surely seperate those who actually care about people from those who do not, publically. Perhaps we need to make the bald (but provable) assertion, "80% of all suicides are men and boys. What are you doing about it?" If the answer is "nothing", the next question is "Why Not?", and then we can let our opponents publically explain why the lives of men are not worth the comfort of women. If the answer is "something", the response is "prove it". Deeds, not words. It's a challenge the Feminists who manipulate political power can ill afford to ignore, if we can make it public enough.

Our Feminist opponents use shaming language for a reason - it has power, power that we and our society invest in it. Perhaps it is worth while to ask them, point blank - "What is more important to you - your so called '77 cents on the dollar', or the lives of your fathers, brothers and sons?" It's a simple question, and demands a simple answer. Anything else is temporizing, evasion, and (if we can arrange it) visible for the world to see.

Moral authority, such as that on which Feminists depend, is derived (in their case) not only from victimhood, but also from the expressed desire (as opposed, perhaps, to the intent) to give aid and succor. Feminists claim to want to help oppressed women to attain to the heights they claim men enjoy. They need not actually help anyone but themselves, but it is essential to their position that they appear to be the Friend and Defender of the Oppressed. If Feminists turn away from all those dead men and boys publically, and we can show the public that this is so, and politicians see that the public sees this they will have lost much of their moral power, which in political terms means their ability to sway votes. The less power Feminists have to deliver votes, the less they will be listened to and courted by politicians. If you want to eliminate VAWA or transform it into something truly gender-neutral, you have to destroy Feminist moral authority. To do that, you need simple questions that require simple answers, questions that Feminists cannot answer in a way that will seem morally acceptable to the public.

Feminists are mistresses of obfuscation and artful bullshit. The best weapon against that is not more bullshit, but simple, provable questions that must be answered or visibly avoided. If you want to take the power of Feminists, don't try to shame them (it might not be possible), but do make others ashamed of them.

Feminism is dying already. I'd like to (figuratively) help hold it under until the bubbles quit coming up.

Off Topic
Paragon, you might be interested in the thesis of a book called Constant Battles by Steven LeBlanc. He argues that throughout most of our life as a species, around 30% of all men died by violence, at the hands of other men. Recent history (last few hundred years) has been some of the most peaceful time in our history as a species. Think about it like this - we have a population of about 6 billion, of which somewhat under half are male. By his reasoning, if were normal as compared to most of our history, at least 1 billion men should have died in battle in the last 30 years or so, most of them without having had a chance to become fathers. If LeBlanc is near right, I'd say we are doing pretty well, considering.
/Off Topic

(TomP) -- "Feminists are mistresses of obfuscation and artful bullshit. The best weapon against that is not more bullshit, but simple, provable questions that must be answered or visibly avoided. If you want to take the power of Feminists, don't try to shame them (it might not be possible), but do make others ashamed of them."

The logic is correct; however, where are the public, legal, and legislative forums where feminism may be interrogated --- other than marginal MRA web sites and 2% of mass media?

If I recall, the Congressional hearings to reauthorize VAWA, hosted by Sen. Joe Biden, specifically censored any expert testimony that was non-feminist.

So the challenge is not how to express the logic, but rather how to get it heard.

Right?

An alternative, of course is "If a man is alone in the forest with no women near, is he still wrong?"

You are correct in that we need wider distribution. However, I think "how to express the logic" is more important that many of us realize.

We are in an information war at present, and we need to use every channel at our disposal. IMO, MRAs might not be winning (although I think we are), but Feminists are certainly losing. MRAs/FRAs are not the only force against Feminism as it is practiced in politics and media nowadays.

In an information war, any meme might become viral and infect the opposition. Witness the DV meme, and the "My Body My Choice" meme. Neither of those memes started in the national media, but they were caught up by the national media through a combination of chance, pithiness and promotion by feminists. When dealing with disinformation, you don't fight with facts, you counter with questions, and make sure you have facts handy when you are challenged.

Coalition forces have lost a little over 4,200 people in six years of war in Iraq. During a six-year period from 2000-2005, CDC reports 150,375 suicides of males in the US. In 2005, that worked out to about 71 deaths by suicide of men and boys every day. If deaths in battle are to be protested, where are the protests for all those dead men and boys?

If we can find a way to frame this meme, it will not need to be sold - it will sell itself. Feminists should be approached on the level of "71 dead men and boys every day - what are you doing about it?" They may claim it is the product of a Patriarchal Culture Of Death(tm). Our reply should be "What are you doing to help those men and boys?" They might claim it is not their problem. We must reply "How is helping your fathers, brothers and sons that are dying not your problem?" Keep the focus not on philosophy or politics, but on the silent ranks of men and boys literally dying for lack of help, and on the Feminists who choose not to help them. Don't assert, beyond the bare facts, but continue to question their motives and willingness. Feminists have power in part because they claim to help the oppressed and because they "Care(tm)". Killing yourself because you prefer death to life sounds pretty damned oppressed to me. Why don't they Care(tm)?

Roy, if we could phrase this issue correctly and encourage MRAs to put it out to online groups and the media in a respectful and non-confrontational manner, and let it do its work, I think a "mere" 2% of the media would be quite sufficient. It wasn't so long ago that we could only dream of that much media support. This might be a (you should pardon the expression) "wedge" issue.

Better still, maybe we can do something for those 71 men and boys, and the 18 women and girls who take their own lives, every day.