Suicide-a feminist issue?

[whenwomenruletheworld]

Tragically high male suicide rates have I think wrongly painted this as a men's issue. Aren't all the suicides men and women tragedies? And if the "man up/grow a pair" culture is in part responsible for men killing themselves in such numbers, when will society see feminism as the main opponent to the patriarchal bullshit which creates these gender stereotypes as the main hope for both men and women of dismantling them? It is disheartening to hear men talk disparagingly about feminism when my God the alternatives PUA nonsense MRA, UKIP, are so totally discredited. As someone posted on here when will there be a men's rights movement which embraces feminism as it's sister movement and which focuses on things which damage everyone?

vesuvia

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

(* article by R. Marmorstein, 1968)

Thanks for that - I didn't know that. I may well be completely wrong on that point then. Are there any articles / writings / interviews by Solanas herself claiming it was satire though?

And as for the misspelling - so did I, it is easy to do.

It's a white feather, I thought, not flower? And it was started by Admiral Charles Fitzgerald, and then taken up by women subsequently.

I agree with slugs in that to me this is a case of patriarchy being damaging to some men, as a consequence of masculine stereoptypes being promoted by other men. To call it internalised misandry is wrong to me.

Interesting thread. I wonder if the capacity and willingness to use violence is also a factor into male suicides? By which I mean that if we assume that males are more likely to use and be comfortable using violence against others (which I understand to be the case) then they should be to themselves too. Hence the difference in suicide methods between males vs females, and I suppose possibly the difference in "success" rates. It may not necessarily be that attempts/self harm are such big factors, it may simply be the method by which the act is carried out.

To answer the OP though, the end result of Feminism (IMO) should result in a breakdown in the problems that cause the high suicide rates, i.e. the removal of the macho-stereotype (amongst the liberation of women of course). Unfortunately this stereotype is a form of collateral damage to the male-class and a price worth paying to maintain the patriarchy...

...depressing isn't it.

Dervel wrote - "A simple historical example of institutionalised misandry would be the White flower girls of WWI"

I find it interesting that whenever this is mentioned it seems to always be described in terms of women shaming men or being cruel to men. The fact that they got the idea from Admiral Charles Fitzgerald's "Order of the White Feather" movement is only very rarely, if ever, mentioned.

It has been proven that poverty has a bigger impact on women for lots of reasons, pay gaps, financial abuse, children. That is indisputable.

OK - I dispute it without proof. For example, a major cause of depression and mental health issues in men is caused by downturns in the economy - because of the patriarchal pressure to be the breadwinner.

btw - I know that most of my answers and points are really REALLY UK-centric, but that is because I don't know enough about other countries. But I don't doubt points made about them by others whom I assume know more than me.

Abuse and violence is more common amongst women

Playing authors advocate I think you are talking about domestic violence and domestic abuse - in which case you are right. In terms of victims of ALL types of violence, again, it is men who suffer the most.

The vast majority of men who are murdered will be murdered by other men too. 93.9% of murderers are men.

So again, trying to play advocate to your point, I am really struggling to understand what you are saying by this? It is undoubtedly true - but (and I don't mean this flippantly) - so what? Because men are perpetrators AND victims it is not an issue?

It can in fact be misandry and mysogyny, the two states are not mutually exclusive. I brought up the white flower movement (started by a man Admiral Charles Fritzgerald), was joined by Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst along with many other feminists of the day, which I think fits the criteria of systemic misandry within feminism (or at least it's leadership) historically. Unless one wants to make the case that feminists handing out white flowers was somehow mysogynistic??

Note I am not saying feminism writ large is wrong, I am firmly convinced we are all better off equal, and in fact I was saddened to learn up thread how women's rights are being sidelined in Afghansitan. If you want to fix poverty in a developing nation you need two solutions, which have never failed to work wherever they have been tried: female access to education, and women's reproductive rights.

The perncious aspects of either misandry or mysogyny are how much of either can be going on "under the hood" of people's minds without realizing it. I'm also not about trying to prove equivilance of either, in fact such would be next to impossible as a man has no idea what it is like to be woman the same as a woman has no idea what it is like to be a man. All we can do is examine individual issues like male suicide and conclude in this instance men have it worse, or we look at sexual assault/rape and conclude women do.

If memory serves Buffy who posts here a lot has done a lot of work helping men with mental health issues, she is a feminist. These things are not mutually exclusive.

I agree with everything you say Melinda, I wouldn't expect Feminists to campaign or devote their energies to problems that men experience, why should they when they have their own, significantly bigger fish to fry.

However, neither men, nor Feminists for that matter, should be under any illusion that this (high male suicide rates) is a problem in the bigger scheme of things. It isn't, the big established movements and patriarchal institutions will pay lip service to those affected, but there will be precious little effort put into tackling it, because in doing so would undermine a key tenet of the Patriarchy!

Thinking about I suppose there is also the fact that suicide is still a big taboo subject to talk about at all, if it isn't talked about it is just considered a dirty little secret that society can ignore for as long as possible.

Unfortunately this stereotype is a form of collateral damage to the male-class and a price worth paying to maintain the patriarchy...

...depressing isn't it.

To some of the male class, please. We don't all want to pay the price, and we don't all want to maintain patriarchy.

One reason why the White Feather Movement was so keen on women giving white feathers to men was that it sent a strong patriarchal (and also anti-woman) message: even women, who society dismisses as being useless in a fight, think the men who received white feathers were cowards. The ultimate humiliation for men was to be criticised by women (the lowest of the low) and much more socially damning than being sneered at by a patriarchal warmongering admiral.

I believe that misandry is not an equal and opposite thing to misogyny.

I think what many men and some women regard as misandry is based ultimately on an underlying foundation of misogyny.

Abolition of misogyny would reduce misandry.

Unfortunately, abolition of misandry would not reduce misogyny.

I really like what vesuvia posted just above,

Abolition of misogyny would reduce misandry.
Unfortunately, abolition of misandry would not reduce misogyny. MRAs believe that this is the case, that women are privileged and men are oppressed by women.

BUT

Well that's basically the MRA charter isn't it.

Hold on a second - you have asked all parts and members of the MRA and that's what we all want? How incredibly rude.

Don't get me wrong - the whole thing probably DOES need dismantling and starting over because of the infiltration of dicks but to paint us all with one brush?

Many people in the mens rights movements that I speak to are much closer to a lot of posters on this board - that patriarchy needs to be broken down for everyone and that needs to be the first goal - because we will all benefit.

I don't say "all feminists hate men" and expect to get away with that. It would be patently untrue.

"To some of the male class, please. We don't all want to pay the price, and we don't all want to maintain patriarchy."

Is this a new version of NAMALT?!

At the risk of getting into a discussion on semantics, when I use the words "male class" I'm not applying them to all males individually. So please forgive me if you felt judged and accused, it was not my intent.

slugseatlettuce

Ah I didn't realise you were an MRA unexpected
I'm really interested what you think that means? As quite clearly you are thinking hard about how not to be misogynistic. Are there situations where you believe men are oppressed? Or is MR to you also about dismantling patriarchy?

Both. I accept that I am sexist, and understand that this is because of the social conditioning that I have been subject to

unexpectedsocialist.blogspot.com/2015/12/gender-role-inequality-still-easy-to.html

I do believe men are oppressed - by patriarchy - in lots of ways, male suicide is one, being sent to "die for your country", violence and murder against men.

But I also think that there are areas where because we don't think hard enough about what men might need / want there is unfairness (or there has been in the past) for example family courts (I believe they are better now), mental health service provision. And in those areas, then yes mens rights DO need a voice.

I have actually thought this for a while, but I am looking to write my first book on it - and how we should dismantle the MRA as it currently stands, and start again - from a more considered approach.

Hence why this is fascinating to me. Also, why I am completely comfortable being as wrong as hell.

My dislike of sweeping generalisations is just a personal thing. But it looks as if all feminists use them.

Isn't it a sweeping generalization that all feminists use sweeping generalizations?

Nice sting in the tail. Or were you in fact deploying a subversive performative speech act to show that every group that goes anywhere near social analysis has to decide where to draw the line between complete fragmentation of any cohesion of analysis and over-generalisation? Hopefully you were. hmm

I am not sure if that is what I did (you have totally out-thunk me there), it was just a little joke. I thought it was really obvious, but if not and it has caused any offense I am absolutely apologetic. I really didn't mean it.

OK - note to self - nobody gets your humour, it only causes trouble, don't do it again.

Sorry

Also, - what is NAMALT?