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?

I agree with slugs, I'm not sure what rights men need that they don't have already...

You might be better to focus on the classics of the second wave - Greer, Millet, Dworkin, Friedan...

But I'm struggling to see the relevance or equivalency - women's liberation has been about women moving from a position of powerlessness though rights-based woman centred action, and men's rights activism consists mainly of trying to take those small gains back from them. They're diametrically opposed. What would men be being liberated from? Your post suggest capitalism, which is quite another kettle of fish I think.

Thanks for your honesty about why you're here, though.

Thanks for the recommendations.

But I'm struggling to see the relevance or equivalency - women's liberation has been about women moving from a position of powerlessness though rights-based woman centred action, and men's rights activism consists mainly of trying to take those small gains back from them. They're diametrically opposed. What would men be being liberated from? Your post suggest capitalism, which is quite another kettle of fish I think.

I don't suggest there is equivalency, and I certainly wouldn't put it in terms of liberation. Men's rights activism SHOULDN'T consist of trying to take gains back from women. So, your question on what should men be liberated from doesn't hold.

However, to suggest that there are not specifically men's rights issues isn't fair. There are examples of things which are indeed stacked against men (being sent to war is one, family courts failings is another, male suicide rates, depiction of male role models in the media, the fact that between starting school and leaving school male children fall massively behind female counterparts) are all issues whereby the "victims" for want of a better word (I am sure there is one) are male.

I certainly wouldn't cover it in terms of "and that is the fault of women, or women's rights movements". I don't believe it is. I don't know yet if we DO need a unified men's rights movement to look at these issues. Maybe we don't. But I wouldn't just rule it out offhand without researching it.

Cheers MM - I will take up the recommendation too.

And who knew they looked at this in the 70s? Surely my generation is the first one to show consciousness of issues?

Seriously? When were men in the UK last "sent to war"? Very few countries still retain the draft. Yet men still complain that it's one of the hard things about being a man.

Family courts routinely award residency to the mother because (because of the patriarchy) it's women who typically have been doing most of the work raising childr3en.

And while male children still fall (not necessarily massively) behind their female counterparts in school grades, this somehow does not seem to matter when it comes to jobs and earning power. We raise girls to be compliant. From a teaching perspective, what this means is compliant girls will do their work, not make noise in the classroom and study for exams. Boys...not so much. I taught adolescents for years and believe me, getting homework or coursework or even a bit of quiet concentration out of boys was like pulling teeth. Those girls do better in tests and exams simply because they are better prepared. Not that matters a damn when it comes to their eventual pay packet though.

And don't get me started on male role models in the media. At least there are some.

Family courts routinely award residency to the mother because (because of the patriarchy) it's women who typically have been doing most of the work raising childr3en

This is an interesting one - it's framed as a right men need to fight for, really, it's a responsibility that they are not taking up.

Admittedly I read on here about the majority of women wanting to stay home with the kids while their partner goes out to work - but that really isn't my experience, all but one woman I know wants to share both work and childrearing (and even that one woman still works out of necessity! She'd just prefer not to - as I'm sure many people, both male and female would).

The UK doesn't even have military national service either.

Comparatively low attainment for boys needs careful analysis because other factors intersect with gender. Ethnicity and class/poverty (not sure of the best way to describe this) are the main two that you would need to look at as well as gender. And I agree with Slug, that this slight underperformance at GCSE doesn't seem to harm long term prospects for men.

Seriously? When were men in the UK last "sent to war"? Very few countries still retain the draft. Yet men still complain that it's one of the hard things about being a man. hmm

Absolutely agree. But, if the worst were to happen tomorrow and a large scale national war occurred, do we believe that our government would start conscription for everyone or just for men? Women are currently kept away from a lot of front-line roles (although thankfully the armed forces are getting better at stopping this sort of rubbish).

Family courts routinely award residency to the mother because (because of the patriarchy) it's women who typically have been doing most of the work raising children.

There are lots of variations on this. But there are also some cases (more than they should be) where women have been awarded care of children because they are women, and for no other strong reason. The fact that recently the law had to be changed to say that the needs of the children should be put first ahead of patriarchal views tells you ALL you need to know about how the courts were running. I don't have a problem with where the courts have made an assessment of the circumstances, but often historically they didn't. But this is improving. Would it have improved without this being made a really public cause throughout the 90s? I don't know.

And while male children still fall (not necessarily massively) behind their female counterparts in school grades, this somehow does not seem to matter when it comes to jobs and earning power. We raise girls to be compliant. From a teaching perspective, what this means is compliant girls will do their work, not make noise in the classroom and study for exams. Boys...not so much.

Each teachers experience is different - my wife now teaches at an all-girls school and hankers back to the days when she taught boys as well. She claims the intrinsic nastiness of young girls is truly terrifying to behold. In terms of jobs and earning power - I still don't get how this works. I can only assume that a lot of the INCREDIBLY well paid jobs go to men who are correctly connected. There is also evidence that for younger women the pay gap is shrinking much more quickly (ie from memory I think it is now at 97p for women between 20 and 30 but can't find the statistic to back that up). Still needs to go completely, but it may be that this imbalance in education is starting to play through - because I doubt it is that we have just all woken up and stopped paying men more.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219306/sfr03_2012_001.pdf - girls do massively outperform boys throughout school education. (Sorry, I had a really good table that compared this across ethnicity and social background but can't link to it from my work computer / being rubbish with technology).

*I taught adolescents for years and believe me, getting homework or coursework or even a bit of quiet concentration out of boys was like pulling teeth. Those girls do better in tests and exams simply because they are better prepared. Not that matters a damn when it comes to their eventual pay packet though.

And don't get me started on male role models in the media. At least there are some.*

Well, there are male and female role models across the media, both good and bad. It is not for me to say which female role models are good or not, but if you look at the "advertising family standard" that exists - feckless man-child father, long-suffering but intelligent and humorous mother, children who understand that really their father is a complete lackwit and they all joke behind his back / roll their eyes. Is that a positive example for our sons? And don't get me started on Homer bloody Simpson.

...and if that analysis ends up in your book, I want that post cited smile

Thanks - really interesting, and a lot to consider. It might well end up in my next blog with my response - too much to include in a post on here!

But, if the worst were to happen tomorrow and a large scale national war occurred, do we believe that our government would start conscription for everyone or just for men?

Neither. I severely doubt there would be conscription at all. Warfare has evolved over the last 50 years so there is no longer a need for large numbers of ground troops. It's a tired old argument that gets trotted out on the MRA forums that backs up their feeling of how very necessary they are and how very, very difficult and dangerous life is for men. Life may be harder for men in some imaginary future with an all out war. Meanwhile, in the real world, two women a week are killed by their current or former partners. Yes men get killed as well but as women consistently point out, typically this is done by other men.

Well, there are male and female role models across the media

I see from your comment you did not follow the link I included. Go back, watch the video, then come back and address the issue. I would apologise for my teacher voice here, but I'm sick to death of boys who never listen then complain when they completely fail to learn.

I feel like the comments about the war massively negate the vital role women and women's work played.
Women did serve in frontline roles in WW2, as spies and they often died.
Women produced the armaments, and kept the country running and fed.
If WW3 broke out tomorrow and women weren't drafted, that would be because our government believes women aren't capable of fighting. But given the number of somehow serving in the armed forces I think its more likely women would be conscripted alongside men.

I don't think that negates the role women played at all. Actually BOTH world wars of last century did see massive movement forward in the rights of women. A major difference was that whilst soldiers were conscripted, spies would choose to serve - and that is huge. A really, really huge difference.

Also, (UK-Centric again) women in the army are not allowed to fulfil frontline roles (as defined by the MOD). Would this change in the face of conscription? There is no historical evidence to believe it would.

Actually, I would rather not ever find out for real, but certainly a question to be asked.

Well, there are male and female role models across the media

I see from your comment you did not follow the link I included. Go back, watch the video, then come back and address the issue. I would apologise for my teacher voice here, but I'm sick to death of boys who never listen then complain when they completely fail to learn.

Slug - my absolute apologies - I did mean to address this. I can't watch video on the computer at work, so I will try and find time tonight to look at it.

Neither. I severely doubt there would be conscription at all. Warfare has evolved over the last 50 years so there is no longer a need for large numbers of ground troops.

Are you basing this on how effectively we have carried out wars over the last 30 years by only applying a small number of troops on the ground and hoping we can win with air-superiority? How's that going for us? Just looking back at those massive wins we have had in Afghanistan and Iraq there, are we?

It's a tired old argument that gets trotted out on the MRA forums that backs up their feeling of how very necessary they are and how very, very difficult and dangerous life is for men. Life may be harder for men in some imaginary future with an all out war. Meanwhile, in the real world, two women a week are killed by their current or former partners. Yes men get killed as well but as women consistently point out, typically this is done by other men.

Not sure what more I have to add (right now) on this, because I think this point has already been raised a few days back - but men suffer violent deaths, and violent assaults much more than women do. All statistics proved this, even when taking into account estimates of under-reporting of domestic violence. Yes, the overwhelming majority of that violence is by other men (I think somebody on here said like 99%). But (and not in a snarky or offensive way) so what? Should we only have a men's rights movement if the argument is that we blame women for the problem? Or is it equally justifiable to have a men's rights movement where we blame men for some of the problems too?

A quote from the UK National Archive about the conscription of British women that occurred during World War II:
"In December 1941 the government passed the National Service Act (No 2), which made provision for the conscription of women. At first only childless widows and single women 20 to 30 years old were called up, but later the age limit was expanded to 19 to 43 (50 for WWI veterans)."

More details about British women's contribution to the war effort in both World Wars can be found at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/womeninuniform/wwii_intro.htm

Conscription of women has been ignored or minimised by many people because it doesn't fit the patriarchal men-only conscription myth.

All the senior management at my company are either childless or have SAHPs. Lost count of the number of men who say a dismissive " oh my wife does all the childcare" if I say anything about balancing work/children.

Just bloody hell. What sort of place do you work in? I recently challenged my company (who are normally amazing) to allow me to take time off for a new child and allow me to have the same benefits as a mother taking time off (ie company maternity pay). The response was "we don't have to, and can't afford it, as much as we would love to". Now looking very hard for a new role.

Which of the problems caused by male violence do you advocate blaming women for?

I never felt like I was suggesting I would. It feels more like other people are suggesting I should if there is to be a rationale for a men's rights movement.