Suicide-a feminist issue?

Suicide is the biggest cause of death in young men, simply because they are generally in good health and not much else kills them, they don't have childbirth, pregnancy, poverty, abuse and murder to contend with in the same way women do.

Really? Oh My God. So men and boys don't suffer from poverty, abuse or murder? 78% of murder victims are male, as a really quick example of why that is wrong.

It is amazing that murder at the hands of men is one of the biggest killers of young women, but it does not get nearly as much attention as suicide in men...

I really like your checklist approach – mainly because it helps me to THINK about things in a more defined way.
In terms of the family courts example, lets expand on that – it might help to get a common definition of what it means, and then what the differences are between the two terms in a genus differentia sort of approach.
I have tried to respond to all of your points, but I am flitting between screens whilst eating a sandwich, so bound to miss something. I think it is worth pointing out as well, that this idea that the family court is there for the benefit of the children is an INCREDIBLY recent change. I think it was one of the Children’s Act changes. Before then, that was not there purpose – they were more like a civil court – more bothered about who “owned” what.

• solely applicable to men – the expectation was always that women would retain the children, and men would provide funding, so it meets this requirement
• inflicted by women – so in many cases, it is women attacking men (often the only way they feel they have available), or does it have to be inflicted by a body of women / does the institution have to be female led (if that makes sense).
• inspired by women hating and/or fearing men – so if the women pushing the case and pushing for unfair or unreasonable impacts is getting them, does it matter why she hates men? Does it matter if she only hates one man – or does she have to hate all men?

• OR enabled by historical precedence, with a broad reluctance to address the possibility of change – as above
• accepted as inevitable by large swathes of the population – as above
• causing real harm to men, not just hurt feelings, but injury, lost opportunity, loss of earnings, ie quantifiable, tangible damage. – Losing your children seems to meet this test.

A simple historical example of institutionalised misandry would be the White flower girls of WWI. By shaming men into getting slaughtered on the battlefields of France it increased the need for women to step up in terms of participating in industry, making the compelling case women were in fact equal.

For a more modern example the drugging of boys in the US as traditional boy behaviour is now undesirable and doesn't fit the modern narrative that there are no innate differences between boys/girls and we must all be the same.

Globally more women suffer with "reactive" mental health problems such as depression because of the shit/desperate situations they find themselves in. Sexual/domestic abuse against women is also the most common cause of ptsd, waay more prevalent than the "veteran soldier" trope that is pedalled. Suicide is the biggest cause of death in young men, simply because they are generally in good health and not much else kills them, they don't have childbirth, pregnancy, poverty, abuse and murder to contend with in the same way women do. All this is taken from official WHO data that I looked into when producing an essay on mental health in women at medical school. Certain mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, are more common in men as they tend to have a genetic aetiology, but mental illness is general is by far a MUCH bigger problem in women, particularly with illnesses like depression that are heavily influenced by life circumstances and a sense of hopelessness/powerlessness.

That jezebel article is OK but it still panders to men's feelings. Feminism isn't about pandering to men's feelings. Men should feel uncomfortable about feminism and it's aims. We want to take away their privilege.

unexpsoc wrote - "Solanas herself was asked about the SCUM manifesto and has said that is was (direct quote) - "dead serious" - ie not satirical"

The source* of that alleged quote from Solanas is an article that didn't even spell her name correctly.

(* article by R. Marmorstein, 1968)

Slugs - Thank you so much for that post. That is precisely what people need to hear about feminism.

It's what I believe and what I want to be heard.

I just read an article ( jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-i ) about this, its quite long but I really liked this list at the end of it:

That is excellent! Thank you for that. It is really cool.

In a similar vein

www.ifyouonlynews.com/feminist-issues/10-rape-prevention-tips-that-are-guaranteed-to-work-image/

I'm sure Solanas was 'deadly serious' about it. Doesn't stop it being satire. Women don't actually do those things to men. Men have done those things to women. Solanas, personally may have wanted to do those things to men. She was angry.

Why are women not allowed to get angry with those that oppress them and why when they do is that called misandry? When tbh it is a perfectly natural reaction to knowing that something is wrong and being powerless (or certainly at a power disadvantage) to do anything about it?

Unex - more women are diagnosed with SOME MH issues and it's possible more women do experience some specific MH issues or it's possible men are less likely to seek a diagnosis or less likely to be diagnosed after seeking a diagnosis or less likely to be referred to secondary MH services.

Within secondary MH services, men are more likely to be given a diagnosis such as psychosis or anti-social PD than women even if exhibiting similar symptoms.

Men are more likely to be over-medicated, physically restrained or sent to secure units. And the issues around this may have multiple factors but the inequality is significant.

If you're a man from an ethnic minority (in particular Black British/Black Afro-Caribbean/Black African) you're pretty much fucked when it comes to statistics around sectioning under the MHA and being sent to secure units.

This IS an issue which affects more young men than women. As do many aspects of mental illness and its treatment.

Is this true? I believed that more women suffered from mental health issues than men? I am sure I read that. Somewhere. May have imagined it.

I think it's interesting to explore what we mean by misogyny - this is making me challenge myself on what I mean when I use it. The list is an exploration, and even five minutes on I might change it! I'm thinking it through.

I don't know that the court example stands up though. It's my understanding that the court's remit is not to reward one parent and punish the other, but to guard the welfare of the child. I'm not saying it's impossible that some vindictive woman is able to play the system and punish an ex, but I think it's more likely that where parents can't agree, the status quo of the child is maintained, which is still vastly more likely to be having the mother care for them.

The effect is that fathers "lose" their children, but the roots of that go back into a world where mothers are the presumed default caretaker, because that is still the way the world most often is. And, with this vindictive, vengeful woman, would she be inspired by a general hatred for all men, or a specific loathing for just the man involved? I wonder.

So no, I don't think what happens in the family courts can be described as misandry - if we do see harm being to men there, I think it's collateral damage from the patriarchal notion of male-breadwinner/female caretaker.

Valerie Solanis wrote a satirical piece about women doing things to men

Sorry, my spelling - it was Solanas. Anyway, Solanas herself was asked about the SCUM manifesto and has said that is was (direct quote) - "dead serious" - ie not satirical.

Unless her saying it was not satire was additional satire - in which case she has fooled everyone twice.

Isn't this thread just an inversion of 'what about the male victims of (insert) rape, DV'.

Yes, suicide affects both sexes but disproportionately affects more young men than women. The posts about 'oh but women commit suicide too or try more often' are using the exact same argument which is annoying and ignoring the real issue when used about male victims of sexual violence or domestic violence.

And 'surely male suicide affects both sexes' is true in the same way that breast cancer affects both sexes. In the small number of men who have breast cancer and the DPs, Fathers and sons it leaves behind.

Is it possibly a consequence of the patriarchal attitude about what being a man means/looks like?. Definitely possible. But these posts about male suicide being more violent or possibly even an act of aggression (even in death, women won't leave a mess behind - to paraphrase) are beyond the pale and ignoring the fact that suicide is ALWAYS an act of self harm that always leads to someone discovering the body and they and the family/friends of the individual being left to pick up the pieces.

This IS an issue which affects more young men than women. As do many aspects of mental illness and its treatment. When it's women disproportionately affected I also object to the 'what about the men' argument as a distraction from the issue while recognising the individuals suffering.

And I can't think of anything that fits the bill...what do people think of my list of requirements? on the right track?

It's a good list of requirements - and if we are NOT talking about it being institutionalised or carried out by an institution, I would argue many results that have come out of family courts where women have been hateful of men or vengeful and have used the historical precedence to get custody of children, take assets etc. with tacit acceptance by the courts that this is just the way it works.

And before I get attacked for this - I am not saying every case, but I would argue a decent proportion. It is a long time since I went toe to toe in a court room - but I believe this has changed massively over the last twenty years.

Does that fit - or would you have to show it to be the case in majority of outcomes for it to hold? Or are there any of your tests that set of results wouldn't fit?

bum! *precedent, not precedence!

What would be an example of actual misandry (systematic, institutional hatred by women of men leading to harm)?

So, I think that is where the conversation breaks down. We simply have different understanding of the meaning of the word misandry. I think you are suggesting that misandry can only exist where it leads to systematic institutional hatred by women of men leading to harm.

I take a much more simple view - misandry simply means hatred of men. By your argument then, can misogyny only exist if it leads to systematic institutional hatred leading to harm? Or can misogyny exist outside of that? For example, misogyny in someone's mind - as long as it doesn't lead to harm, is not misogyny?

I am not sure that is played out by how we have written our laws on discrimination, or the generally accepted academic understanding of the word BUT I accept what matters is what it means to each person. So, in your understanding, misandry can never exist - mainly because misogyny got there first.

In answer to a slightly altered version of your question - What would be an example of my (MM) understanding of misandry (systematic, institutional hatred by women of men leading to harm)?

That is a really good one. I might have to look into that. I would imagine if any examples exist they would be few and far between.

It's partly the previous usage, unexpsoc, and partly thinking that there's just no actual real useful application of the word, other than the way it has been used, ie as deflection and weapon.

I am racking my brains to think of a real-world situation that could be described as misandry. It would need to be

• solely applicable to men
• inflicted by women
• inspired by women hating and/or fearing men

• OR enabled by historical precedence, with a broad reluctance to address the possibility of change
• accepted as inevitable by large swathes of the population
• causing real harm to men, not just hurt feelings, but injury, lost opportunity, loss of earnings, ie quantifiable, tangible damage.

And I can't think of anything that fits the bill...what do people think of my list of requirements? on the right track?

I'd like to know that Melinda too.

Valerie Solanis wrote a satirical piece about women doing things to men - which a) they don't do and b) men have already done to women (and that seems to pass over everyone's head!). She was also in an abusive relationship with Warhol and hit back.