Sorting out puzzle of male suicide

"If fathers say openly and repeatedly that acknowledging depression and sadness is not a sign of personal weakness but of superior judgment, if they say that getting help is their obligation as men so they can be good partners and providers, then maybe we have a chance at changing the centuries of hard-wiring that makes boys and men so much more violent than women -- whether toward others or toward themselves."

Hard-wired to be violent? Horsecow.

And why get help for your depression? So you can be better partners and providers, not so you can be happy with life. Even as the author of this article is showing sympathy for males (a sympathy I doubt she would have had she borne a daughter rather than a son), she still writes from a place of feminist doctrinaire. This reminds me of an article I read once by an early abolitionist who said that releasing blacks from slavery would allow them to be "better workers for society, as they could now choose the work they do rather than have it assigned by force to them," or somesuch tripe. Nowhere did the author of that particular article mention that release from slavery was the right thing to do for no other reason than human beings had no place being held in bondage to others, period. Same idea applies here.

Of the 30,622 Americans of all ages who took their own lives in 2001, 24,672 were men. I have been thinking about the people I know who committed suicide. My grandfather. My Uncle Tommy. Two of my of father's closest friends. And, most recently, the UC Davis freshman who is my friend's son. All men. I had never noticed.

The last two sentence fragments tell the whole story.

Some will argue that these statistics don't tell the whole story and are even misleading. And to some extent, they would be right. Girls and women attempt suicide at much higher rates than boys and men. So there is good reason to be concerned about girls, too.

But don't forget about the girls!! Please whatever you do, don't forget that it's really all about the girls!

I am always surprised -- though I shouldn't be by now -- at how differently men and women connect with each other, particularly during a time of crisis. My husband and his friends can spend the whole day together playing golf or watching a ball game and go home without having gleaned any personal information. A guy can be going through a divorce and his friends might never know. The topic might never come up, even if the guy is crushed by the split.

Translation: Remember, I am a feminist and therefore haven't the first clue about anything male.

Women, or at least the women I know, would return home with the complete history of the relationship, the exact wording, setting and context of the key break-up conversation, the name and credentials of the therapist she's seeing.

More on this later, but a big part of the problem is not the lack of teaching our sons to have feelings and express them but how the system treats males differently then females.

Ok, so lets say a man goes to a therapist and talks about suicidal tenancies as this feminist suggests.

The end result could be a divorce and a prison cell thanks to other feminists. If he discloses troubles to a "helping professional" the "helping professional" is obligated to report any act of violence or potential violence (suicidal thoughts count as violence towards women in feminist thinking) to the industry and is likely to ask his wife or female partner to come in to talk. So now he is on various watch lists and on his local police forces radar screen. Then when the "helping professional" gets to talk to his wife or partner the feminist doctrine they were taught is the holy bible of "helping professionals" dictates that they must steer her into the waiting arms of a womens shelter and divorce lawyer to save her from her partners potential violence. He will teach her to fear him rather then help. End result, restraining order, divorce, false accusations etc.... and, of course the victory for feminists everywhere, he follows through and kills himself.

If fathers say openly and repeatedly that acknowledging depression and sadness is not a sign of personal weakness but of superior judgment, if they say that getting help is their obligation as men so they can be good partners and providers, then maybe we have a chance at changing the centuries of hard-wiring that makes boys and men so much more violent than women -- whether toward others or toward themselves.

I had to suppress my gag reflex reading that paragraph. I could write an essay about the things wrong with that, but let me just expound about male vs. female violence:

Think of our existing justice system as a filter. A filter designed to catch remove deviant males from the rest of society. this is the sole purpose of the entire thing from start to finish.

Like any filter, it sometimes catches the particles it is designed to let through. No such thing as a perfect filter. This explains the innocents sometimes convicted and the females that occasionally get caught.

To say that females are less violent then males is like saying that guns are less dangerous then knives because a kevlar vest will not allow a bullet fired from a gun to pass through but it will allow a knife blade to pass through. Therefore knives are more dangerous then guns.

This example is how the system works as a filter catching as many males as possible while allowing females to pass through. The whole system from the beginning is designed NOT to catch females. People (we are all the first layer in the filter) are far less likely to report female criminality. Police are far less likely to arrest a female if reported. Police are much more likely to undercharge a female who does get arrested. The prosecutor is much more likely to to decide not to peruse already reduced charges against females. Juries are more likely to excuse females if the prosecutor actually brings the charges forward. Judges are more likely to sentence females leniently if the jury finds any guilt at all.

See, a multi-layer filter designed to allow females to pass through it and catch males.

It sickens me physically when feminists write about extremely important issues that concern primarily males.

One might argue that accepting the inevitability of living out one’s life as a man in a feminist society is equivalent to a kind of slow psychological suicide.

(Most long-married men would testify that they have been experiencing a slow lobotomy.)

Apparently the majority of American men have already have accepted their powerlessness.

Feminism has men in a diabolical and brilliant "Catch-22" bind –

On the one hand, it’s not “manly” to be patriarchal, authoritative, aggressive, protective, self-sacrificing, and decisive --- those kinds of men are the Neanderthals of yesteryear. They need to “reconstruct” their masculinity along feminist lines.

On the other hand, it’s also according to modern women not “manly” to be non-chivalrous, to decline to be sacrificed for women, to reject the “male privilege” of the high-income domestic servant wage-slavery route, to ask her to pay for a date, to refuse to marry, to seek male reproductive freedom, to do less than 51%^ of the housework, etc. etc.

As long as men accept that women (feminists and so-called non-fems) have any right to define what masculinity is about --- men will continue to suffer and be marginalized in the political arena.

Feminists have long asserted that “no man can speak for a woman… he does not know what it’s like to bleed, give birth, go through menopause…” etc.

It’s time for men to educate all our female comrades exactly why no feminist-indoctrinated female can speak for any man.

Wendy --- are you listening?

When a young female "attempts" suicide she has very precisely figured out how to get the attention she needs to try to get over some emotional crisis.

When a young man achieves suicide, he has no illusions about the party he's gonna get from his loving friends who are glad he's still alive.

Tell me my interpretation is incorrect, please.

See Hoff-Sommers, "The War Against Boys": In some sense it is a feminist or at least a female construct in modern society, that it is better to "spill your guts" as far as what you are feeling, as opposed to keeping the feelings to oneself. And although I agree that it is oftentimes appropriate to express one's strong feelings, I see no evidence of inherent superiority of one viewpoint (the female) over the other (the male), even in cases of divorce. And neither does Hoff-Sommers.

But over the last 30 years or so, people in our society have become socialized to believe that the female view of things is superior, without even noticing this subtle shift in their thinking. For example: Womens' ways of knowing are better; men think too linearly; and even the (unproveable) notion that "men don't like to ask for directions" when driving. Lets look at that last example. 30 years ago it would have been considered an advantage, an example of mens' independence and self-sufficiency. Now it is given as a negative criticism.

Hate to tell you this, but there ARE many situations where it is more adaptive to not get emotional or spill your guts (by the way, it is also a Freudian construct that holding in your feelings is what causes depression, anger etc. That is NOT in line with current psychology theory). I hope no-one is thinking that I am suggesting, that someone who feels like harming themselves should not seek help, or that someone going through a divorce should make a point of clamming up. I am merely commenting on what a couple of people have written in their posts.

-Axolotl

axolotl --

Are you suggesting that Freud played right into feminist psychoanalytical theories?

WHAT exactly is "current psychological theory?"

PILLS?

Right?

Big Pharma?

The usual House of Cards?

mcc99 - "And why get help for your depression? So you can be better partners and providers, not so you can be happy with life."

Now that's insight into the gender wars!

A poorly adjusted man (i.e. undomesticated slave) must be mentally ill.

His "adjustment" via counseling and/or drugs will help him to be a happy slave.

The term gender WAR is not without reason.

Even though we must give feminists full credit for showing us that it is, indeed, a ZERO SUM GAME.

Live free or submit.

Is there a third choice for men?

I certainly can't tell you you are incorrect. I have never known a male that has failed in his suicide attempt personally so I have no knowledge of how he would be received from my own life. I do however know two men in my family who have successfully committed suicide (one was my father the other was an uncle through marriage on my mothers side) and I do know how my family has viewed them since. Essentially, they are viewed as failures to the family and scapegoats whenever convenient to blame for the problems that occurred both before and after the their tragic deaths. Easy to pass the blame onto some one who isn't there to defend themselves and especially when you can explain their death and people assume it is a sign of guilt.

I would imagine though a male who fails in his attempt to take his own life would be subject to similar treatment from his family and friends. I would imagine he would face more blame from those closest to him then anything else.

It is a female construct in modern society that its better to spill your guts out. The problem is that we still hold on to both old male constructs and have adopted feminist theory as a guiding light which tend to result in completely different outcomes for males who spill their guts about their feelings from females who spill theirs.

Buying the lie that being open and honest with your feelings will have equal results regardless of gender appears to be a source of many problems for men who fall for it rather then the solution they seek.

Could you elaborate on "current psychological theory" as I am not aware of any leading professionals who do not believe that holding in your feelings can cause depression.

It seems to me that someone suggested suicide as an issue..like maybe the person posting the story. The issue of anger also was suggested in a couple people's responses. So I mentioned depression and anger, so?
Usually people who commit suicide do so out of anger and/or depression.
So the issue of Freud came up, since he was a the first psychoanalyst, and he had a theory of depression, which had to do with anger.

With me so far??

He thought a cause of depression was holding one's anger inward. See the connection?
So that is the theory that most psychotherapists went along with until the 80's, when a) more advanced medicines came out, b) more scientific studies were conducted, and c)cognitiver therapy and other forms of therapy were shown to be effective. (some forms of therapy, and especially medicine, is not a house of cards..too bad you are wrong. Those placebo "studies" only test the medicines for a few weeks. Guess what happens to the efffectiveness of the placebo after that time period??).

Current theory is that a) depression is always chemical in nature, but the attitude and social environment, upbringing etc. can effect chemistry; it is not simple cause-and-effect, and b)It is not a matter of "holding anger in", there is no "store" of anger (even though that is how it feels to the angry person).

Instead, anger has to do with a developed pattern of thinking..where certain people become essentially "practiced" in automatically dealing with internal issues in this way. Then in turn, the depressed mood itself becomes a practiced method of response to the anger; for example, self-incrimination and guilt feelings over posessing the anger. That is not the same as "holding the anger in".

There are thousands of books, web sites etc..you are free to check them out. Otherwise you will continue to be wrong, unless you yourself get clinical depression, then take medicine. You will be amazed at how that will change your opinion. ;)

P.S: someone else here wrote a couple of weeks ago, that psych meds have an equal "mind-altering" effect as alcohol and narcotics. That is so ridiculous, it does not deserve a response. Where DO people get these ideas?? It has always been a mystery to me. Basically it is superstition of an uneducated public.

someone else here wrote a couple of weeks ago, that psych meds have an equal "mind-altering" effect as alcohol and narcotics.

Ritilin. I was on it. I can honestly describe the affect of it as watching the movie of my life. I was not me, and I knew I was not me.

As such, I refuse drug therapy for myself. I have read a few good books on cognative therapy and consider the process to be very helpful. I figure even if you think you're perfectly mentally healthy, a good book on it will help you if you ever get stuck in a bad mood.

--Demonspawn

But actually Ritalin is not usually considered to fit into the category of "psych meds", i.e. meds for mental illness, like anti-depressants, anti-pschotics and the like. ADHD is not considered a mental illness per se (I know it is in DSM-IV; that is a compendium of disorders. For example, Chronic Insomnia is also listed therein, but it is not a mental illness).

On a different note, it also seems to me that anytime a boy looks outside a window during class, he is "diagnosed" with ADHD (whereas he may be suffering from Bad Teacher Disorder). That is why parents, expecially of young boys, need to be ever-vigilant of what is going on in their school and classes; i.e. they need to be aware that some of the faculty and administration are monstrous ass-wipes, that will fuck up a kid given the opportunity.

-Axolotl