The Silent Epidemic of Male Suicide

[dust1n]

Men attempt suicide more often because the lives of men are very stressful and we're expected to hide it. Men tend to take failure to succeed in social obligations very hard and then are expected to hide signs of weakness. So men are less likely to express when they're depressed and suicidal. So it tends to fester.

Men are more likely to succeed at a suicide attempt because they typically choose more violent methods than women do.

From the article:

"We do not fully understand the complexity of suicide, including the reasons for the gender difference in suicidal behavior. This makes it particularly challenging to develop effective prevention programs that can address the high rates of suicide in men specifically.

What are the factors contributing to men’s higher rate of death by suicide; and, in particular, why do such a high proportion of male suicide attempts end in death? As noted in a recent review of suicide risk screening, “dramatic differences in suicide behaviors among men and women… have drawn little attention. A better understanding of these variations may have direct implications for screening and treatment strategies, and they warrant further research.”[18]

One line of investigation has focused on suicide methods.[6] A well-established finding is that men are more likely to use suicide methods of high lethality, methods with increased risk of death. For example, a recent pan-European study found that the highly lethal methods of hanging and firearms were more likely to be used by men. Sixty-two percent of males, versus 40% of females, used hanging or firearms in their suicidal actions.[19]

Other investigators have confirmed that compared with suicidal women who use firearms to shoot themselves in the body, men are more apt to shoot themselves in the head, increasing the likelihood of death.[20]

These findings suggest that restricting access to firearms might be a way to achieve a relative reduction in male suicide, and there is some tentative support for this as an important suicide prevention strategy.[21-23]"

Uh oh... but really:

"It is remarkable how little we have learned about causal factors and preventive strategies specifically relevant to male suicide.

A richer understanding of the pathways to suicide characteristic of men will give us a stronger basis for designing programs to prevent suicide in the general male population and the subpopulation of men with identified mental health problems."

I suspect there are many factors that play into it, many of which have been around for a long time.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

From the article:

"We do not fully understand the complexity of suicide, including the reasons for the gender difference in suicidal behavior. This makes it particularly challenging to develop effective prevention programs that can address the high rates of suicide in men specifically.

What are the factors contributing to men’s higher rate of death by suicide; and, in particular, why do such a high proportion of male suicide attempts end in death? As noted in a recent review of suicide risk screening, “dramatic differences in suicide behaviors among men and women… have drawn little attention. A better understanding of these variations may have direct implications for screening and treatment strategies, and they warrant further research.”[18]

One line of investigation has focused on suicide methods.[6] A well-established finding is that men are more likely to use suicide methods of high lethality, methods with increased risk of death. For example, a recent pan-European study found that the highly lethal methods of hanging and firearms were more likely to be used by men. Sixty-two percent of males, versus 40% of females, used hanging or firearms in their suicidal actions.[19]

Other investigators have confirmed that compared with suicidal women who use firearms to shoot themselves in the body, men are more apt to shoot themselves in the head, increasing the likelihood of death.[20]

These findings suggest that restricting access to firearms might be a way to achieve a relative reduction in male suicide, and there is some tentative support for this as an important suicide prevention strategy.[21-23]"

Uh oh... but really:

"It is remarkable how little we have learned about causal factors and preventive strategies specifically relevant to male suicide.

A richer understanding of the pathways to suicide characteristic of men will give us a stronger basis for designing programs to prevent suicide in the general male population and the subpopulation of men with identified mental health problems."

I suspect there are many factors that play into it, many of which have been around for a long time.

I didn't even look at the article. I just posted what I've learned from other sources.

 

[Revoltingest]

It goes a little something like this.

Back before large towns/cities, everyone did roughly the same jobs. Hunted and gathered and the associated tasks. This was a highly communal way of living. Communities were closer, so if a member had issues they had plenty of social support.

But with the introduction of other skills eg blacksmithing, mining and trading, community members had to travel, live in different areas. With that came social separation, less communal support.

Ergo depression.

With the invention of tv, digital gaming and the internet we are even less connected.

How do we know that depression didn't dog earlier societies?

 

[dust1n]

I didn't even look at the article. I just posted what I've learned from other sources.

Gotcha. There a numerous set of potential factors for why men succeed and killing themselves more on a basis. I suspect they are more determined to do it. But not much has really developed on accounting for these multiple factors.

So, I tend to keep my speculation on why people kill themselves to a minimum, unless their is some substantial evidence for a determining factor. In which case, it should be addressed. Until, I fully support giving services, help, and research for the suicidal, regardless of gender.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Men are more likely to succeed at a suicide attempt because they typically choose more violent methods than women do.

I would also suggest that some attempts are desperate cries for help, as opposed to a serious spirited attempt for release from life on Earth.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would also suggest that some attempts are desperate cries for help, as opposed to a serious, spirited attempt for release from life on Earth.

Definitely.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

w

How do we know that depression didn't dog earlier societies?

We don't

That's why it is only a theory (and not in the scientific sense, so all the anti-science people can settle down)

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I beg to differ. It really just depends on who you ask. Extreme feminists argue that heterosexual males need femininity and need feminism and vilify traditional masculinity. Even when the so-called "patriarchy" works in favor of females and to the detriment of males, it's apparently--to they--a scheme of the patriarchy.

We can, of course, denounce extremists, but the reality is that they tend to be the ones that make their voices heard loudest. It's very striking and terribly ironic when groups of people get together to picket, protest, and even make bomb threats when males peacefully congregate to discuss issues that specifically affect them, such as the topic of suicide.

Well, let's not use weasel words. Let's talk about the positions actually being argued here, for the sake of clarity and intellectual fairness. What I advocate is absolute freedom of sexual and gender expression. Women historically have been denied freedom on the basis of gender way more often and drastically than men. For this reason, I consider myself a feminist.

It's also important to note that patriarchy is not a synonym for misogyny or sexism, but actually a fairly complex concept. Basically what it means is a culture in which men are the holders of power and have authority over women. The word literally means rule by father. In a patriarchal system, women are pressured to be subservient, but men are also pressured to be controlling and seek power, which can also be very hurtful and oppressive.

As for bomb threats against people discussing male suicide rates, I've never heard of this in my life. If by "extremist feminists" you mean 70s-style radfems, I can't stand most of them. A lot of "radical feminism" is straight-up awful.

 

[freethinker44]

You know what's really vilified? Male femininity. And yet you never see self-proclaimed "men's rights activists" fighting for the rights of men to wear dresses or be sexually penetrated... wonder why?

Are they against it though? Being against something and not talking about it are not the same thing. As far as I know, they haven't come out against men eating pancakes either, but that doesn't mean they hate men eating pancakes. And why would they, they're delicious.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Are they against it though? Being against something and not talking about it are not the same thing. As far as I know, they haven't come out against men eating pancakes either, but that doesn't mean they hate men eating pancakes. And why would they, they're delicious.

I never said they were against it, or implied it, or made it part of my point at all. My actual point is that so-called "men's rights activists" ignore the men who face the most gendered oppression. This is because their goal is to defend traditional masculinity rather than challenging it. Contrast that with feminism, which spends a lot of time aiming to challenge traditional femininity.

 

[freethinker44]

I never said they were against it, or implied it, or made it part of my point at all. My actual point is that so-called "men's rights activists" ignore the men who face the most gendered oppression. This is because their goal is to defend traditional masculinity rather than challenging it. Contrast that with feminism, which spends a lot of time aiming to challenge traditional femininity.

Of course they don't challenge traditional masculinity, why would they? Traditional masculinity has been great to men over the years. It's areas that hurt men that they challenge, like father's rights, marriage and divorce, disposability, etc, all of which equally apply to and help "feminine" men as well. The reason feminism catches flak over ignoring other marginalized groups is because they claim to encompass those groups, as far as I know the MRM doesn't make this claim.

 

[Curious George]

Of course, you know there is no black and white delineation of these groups. Moderates may support extremists in a small way by self-identifying with said group. But most importantly, irrationality begins to seep in when one hears only one side of the story. When people begin to identify with one group, this is often an unfortunate side-effect, not exclusive to feminists. The reality is that while feminists claim to support equality between both sexes--and some of them are very on-par, by the way--the primary angle yet seems to be an assumption that females are victimized by a patriarchal culture and that to achieve equality is by nearly sole advancement of females, whatever that may entail. Some of the more egalitarian, or moderate, feminists will point out some of the challenges of males, but even they are unlikely to dedicate time to pursuing the dissemination of such information, let alone the correction of the dynamic. Also, one thing I do reject, even from moderates is the idea that "males need feminism." No. Feminism is optional. There is nothing wrong with masculinity necessarily.

I don't believe classifying you as one or the other would be remotely helpful in discussion. I will say that I am supremely concerned with equality between the sexes, and that is what precipitated my leave from feminist self-identification. In fact, if we are to end the gender wars, I'm afraid the only way to do it is to put down our weapons and stop blaming one over the other.

This is very interesting. I have never considered myself having weapons with regard to being a feminist. I certainly do not oppose masculinity, I am rather masculine. But, the idea that men do not need to feminism (I assume you mean traits here, not the movement) is questionable. Most humans, are neither completely masculine, or completely feminine in there traits. I have yet to meet a man that is completely masculine or a female that is completely feminine. Rather we are all on a spectrum somewhere. I absolutely agree nothing is wrong with masculinity, and I imagine if you find a feminist that says something is wrong with masculinity then they are either confused or there is an error in communication. What someone saying such things might be discussing is that something is wrong with how society shapes masculinity, favors masculinity, or attributes anti social behavior as masculine.

Part of the label of masculinity that feminists fight is the notion that a man is a slave to his beast-like sexual impulses. While aggressiveness is a masculine trait; sexual assault is not.

Now me giving my name to feminism does not support radical feminists. Me identifying as a feminist clearly contradicts radical feminists.

I am unclear if your irrationality seeps in, is a form of support...perhaps as group think or support through reinforcement of view?

Either way, I think you are mistaken here. I would have and have had little to no issues challenging feminists or non-feminists on issues. In feminism, we see challenging ideas all the time. This is why we can have such diverse views under the umbrella of feminism. Some feminists may assert porn is bad, others say that porn can empower. Understanding either view however requires a deep analysis of society and porn and how this affects women and gender roles from a female perspective. So, I am reluctant to think agree that there is a lot of ego stroking in a movement that encourages diverse perspective, New ideas and critical thought

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Of course they don't challenge traditional masculinity, why would they? Traditional masculinity has been great to men over the years.

For you, maybe. If a woman who says "traditional femininity has been great to women" isn't a feminist, it would be the same with men's issues. Or do you not believe in equality?

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Women historically have been denied freedom on the basis of gender way more often and drastically than men. For this reason, I consider myself a feminist.

Disagree. That's not the whole story.

Females are the reproductive vessels by which our species survives. In nature, males can be optional, and are always disposable. The idea that males are in charge is a fantasy. A perspective. And this idea that they're collectively oppressing females? That's even more absurd.

A great deal of the work that our species has expended--and continues to expend--was/is dedicated to protecting females and ensuring their health and survival. This is not optional. Historically, survival--and hence freedom--have been protected by sacrificing the health and lives of males. Obviously males don't have a uterus and lactating breasts, so it's not as if males could fill-in for their female counterparts. The cost of all this was the agency of females. Still, not a bad setup; your mobility becomes rather limited, but your life and reproductive capabilities are secure. At the same time, males had no more choice in being work horses and soldiers than females did in being house wives and child-rearers.

Even today, this dynamic continues and dismantling it is partly a resistance to biology. Blaming one sex for the limitations of the other is like blaming your parents for forcing you to be alive.

 

[Curious George]

Disagree. That's not the whole story.

Females are the reproductive vessels by which our species survives. In nature, males can be optional, and are always disposable. The idea that males are in charge is a fantasy. A perspective. And this idea that they're collectively oppressing females? That's even more absurd.

A great deal of the work that our species has expended--and continues to expend--was/is dedicated to protecting females and ensuring their health and survival. This is not optional. Historically, survival--and hence freedom--have been protected by sacrificing the health and lives of males. Obviously males don't have a uterus and lactating breasts, so it's not as if males could fill-in for their female counterparts. The cost of all this was the agency of females. Still, not a bad setup; your mobility becomes rather limited, but your life and reproductive capabilities are secure. At the same time, males had no more choice in being work horses and soldiers than females did in being house wives and child-rearers.

Even today, this dynamic continues and dismantling it is partly a resistance of biology. Blaming one sex for the limitations of the other is like blaming your parents for forcing you to be alive.

While I certainly wouldn't discount evolution as a reason for the later observed female oppression in many societies, this doesn't make it necessary, just, or beneficial today. That you are positing an evolutionary basis for sexism only reinforces the need for feminism.

If we assume your division, and work from there, why then are females not allowed equal or indeed higher status in decision making? Why are women later objectified? Why are women denied equal status in property ownership? You make a great case for a tribe out in the jungle or desert, but it makes less sense as society progresses. These differences make sense in one context but they stopped being relevant a long time ago. Moreover, much of what feminists fight or have fought for have is not division of labor or protection of women.

The biggest point here is what is beneficial for a wandering tribe is not necessarily beneficial for us today.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I just realized...When did this thread go from focusing on the silent epidemic of male suicide to focusing on whether the whole of feminism is good or bad?

 

[chevron1]

It's also important to note that patriarchy is not a synonym for misogyny or sexism, but actually a fairly complex concept. Basically what it means is a culture in which men are the holders of power and have authority over women....
As for bomb threats against people discussing male suicide rates, I've never heard of this in my life. If by "extremist feminists" you mean 70s-style radfems, I can't stand most of them. A lot of "radical feminism" is straight-up awful.

patriarchy is not misogyny but is misunderstood as misogyny.

the bomb threats are real and can material in many ways, such as trans-gay therapy where they advocate (and have done this) injecting men's brains with high concentration estrogen to transgenderize them. it's call trans-gay because it's purpose is to turn gay men into bisexual men, like bruce jenner (now caitlyn) where it went too far and turned him fully into a woman. trans-gay is a bomb thrown at men who disagree with the rise of women to matriarchy.

 

[chevron1]

Disagree. That's not the whole story.

Females are the reproductive vessels by which our species survives. In nature, males can be optional, and are always disposable. The idea that males are in charge is a fantasy. A perspective. And this idea that they're collectively oppressing females? That's even more absurd.

if men are disposable why did god create men first and why do women have pain in childbirth? is the pain not to remind them to be obedient to men?

A great deal of the work that our species has expended--and continues to expend--was/is dedicated to protecting females and ensuring their health and survival. This is not optional.

protecting females is a choice of men. if they don't want the species to be propagated by men, then god will propagate the species. remember this is a religious forum and god can do anything he wants.

Even today, this dynamic continues and dismantling it is partly a resistance of biology. Blaming one sex for the limitations of the other is like blaming your parents for forcing you to be alive.

andrea dworkin blamed men for everything. when she married, she married a castratee. that's the future of men under matriarchy.

 

[Revoltingest]

patriarchy is not misogyny but is misunderstood as misogyny.

the bomb threats are real and can material in many ways, such as trans-gay therapy where they advocate (and have done this) injecting men's brains with high concentration estrogen to transgenderize them. it's call trans-gay because it's purpose is to turn gay men into bisexual men, like bruce jenner (now caitlyn) where it went too far and turned him fully into a woman. trans-gay is a bomb thrown at men who disagree with the rise of women to matriarchy.

This seems very very strange.
Have any credible links?

 

[chevron1]

This seems very very strange.
Have any credible links?

revoltingest, do you need proof to discuss a hypothetical? treat it as a hypothetical, because the proof is ugly.