Why Men Kill themselves

[geedoenfj]

Women and men are DIFFERENT, they're different physically, psychologically, have different roles in life, men can never get pregnant and breastfeed and attend business meetings wearing makeup and short skirt and high-heels, women can never give their last name to their babies, and trying to reinforce different cultural rules thinking that over the time their nature and these expectations will change is not going anywhere, and what's the point?! I know that some people think that the society should not be a man oriented, I don't also think society should only goes where men wish, but let's admit it: Do women needs to be with a man who cannot protect her? Do men prefer a woman who doesn't give him a chance to be her night of the shining armor? No I don't think so..
We have expectations for both genders that's okay, but I don't believe we should necessarily enforce it on people, let people be what they're naturally designed to be, and spread justice in the society instead of "equality"

 

[Tilt]

This is where I'm pointing out the (partially) hard-wired aspects of these things. Even those women who consciously admire a man who is more emotionally expressive and enjoy how that lets them relate to him better, still tend to unconsciously be put off by it. Not all women, mind you, but if there is a woman you don't know, and you were to place bets, you'd bet on their unconsciously being put off by it.

I believe that part of the reason that these kinds of things are so controversial and difficult to discuss is that most people have a difficult time admitting their unconscious thoughts, in part because they legitimately consciously reject them, but also in part because they're embarrassed that they even have them. You get the same kind of pushback from young INTJs, trying to explain to them how emotions and feelings work, but they insist that they don't have any strong emotions or feelings, because they've relegated those embarrassing feelings to the unconscious.

I see your point. In those situations, I actually have an urge to emotionally comfort the male but there is a hesitancy/discomfort in that l don't know how to react without possibly being too smothering and making him feel "emasculated". In my own way, I talk about emotions in a analytical, intellectualized way without the emotional energy, but I don't really know how to combat this issue as a whole.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Perhaps instead of being goaded into giving up the very features that cause them to be attractive to the opposite sex in the first place,

Agree partly with this first part. I think many feminists' approach to helping men are flawed, because they have this "let's teach men to be the good kind of men" approach rather than simply letting them be what they need to be. Where we disagree, I think, is in your assumption that all men should naturally fit some particular mold of masculinity to be attractive to the opposite sex? I think what women are attracted to is going to vary from woman to woman, not mention depending on the circumstances, i.e. pregnant women preferring different male traits to ovulating women--there have been studies on this, and I will try to find them to share in this thread.

men should be taught to embrace these innate aspects and inclinations instead of being taught to hate themselves for who and what nature intended them to be.

I don't think that's the answer. As a number of other members have already pointed out, not all people will fit a specific mold of being, and trying to teach or force them to be something they aren't cannot be healthy for those individuals.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Agree partly with this first part. I think many feminists' approach to helping men are flawed, because they have this "let's teach men to be the good kind of men" approach rather than simply letting them be what they need to be. Where we disagree, I think, is in your assumption that all men should naturally fit some particular mold of masculinity? That approach, if it is the case, is really no healthier than a feminist approach.



I don't think that's the answer. As a number of other members have already pointed out, not all people will fit a specific mold of being, and trying to teach or force them to be something they aren't cannot be healthy for those individuals.

This is the reason I decided a while back to just counsel women. I am a woman and I understand the woman experience. I understand men in context of being a woman, not from the context of being a man, which is what men mostly need when undergoing counseling and stuff.

I think desegregation of the genders can be fun, but can also be harmful in many ways. This idea that anyone can be either sex and that anyone can understand the opposite sex is just foolish. Maybe some few rare persons can, but for the most part, a man needs a man to relate to in many ways. And if he cannot find a sympathetic male, than an open-minded female is the next best thing.

Isn't feminism becoming outdated for the drivel that it spews, yet?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

^Well, that's bullshit. "Toxic masculinity" is IN NO WAY saying "guys, you're toxic." That is not what toxic masculinity is- it is the EXPECTATIONS we put on men, from birth, to be stoic, strong, unemotional, and superhuman. Which you would know if you had read beyond the title of the article I posted.

So I read that article. There were some good points made. There were also some assumptions made based on referenced writings of other authors which in several cases seemed to be largely conjectural or speculative. I just wish the author of the article had done a better job of citing some of the studies she referenced. I would have liked to have dug further, but it seemed like she was making her case without making it easier for readers to get deeper into what led to her conclusions.

 

[D'Ascoyne]

Women and men are DIFFERENT, they're different physically, psychologically, have different roles in life, men can never get pregnant and breastfeed and attend business meetings wearing makeup and short skirt and high-heels,

Okay.

women can never give their last name to their babies,

Yes, they can.

and trying to reinforce different cultural rules thinking that over the time their nature and these expectations will change is not going anywhere, and what's the point?!

The point is the system itself lacks integrity. At the very least, it needs to be examined. Differences aside, we're doing it wrong. It's not working.

I know that some people think that the society should not be a man oriented, I don't also think society should only goes where men wish, but let's admit it: Do women needs to be with a man who cannot protect her? Do men prefer a woman who doesn't give him a chance to be her night of the shining armor? No I don't think so..

Each person's needs are different.

We have expectations for both genders that's okay, but I don't believe we should necessarily enforce it on people,

If you don't believe in enforcing gender expectations onto people, then why form the expectations to begin with?

let people be what they're naturally designed to be,

That's for each individual to decide for themselves.

and spread justice in the society instead of "equality"

I think they come in a package deal.

 

[Lark]

This is where I'm pointing out the (partially) hard-wired aspects of these things. Even those women who consciously admire a man who is more emotionally expressive and enjoy how that lets them relate to him better, still tend to unconsciously be put off by it. Not all women, mind you, but if there is a woman you don't know, and you were to place bets, you'd bet on their unconsciously being put off by it.

I believe that part of the reason that these kinds of things are so controversial and difficult to discuss is that most people have a difficult time admitting their unconscious thoughts, in part because they legitimately consciously reject them, but also in part because they're embarrassed that they even have them. You get the same kind of pushback from young INTJs, trying to explain to them how emotions and feelings work, but they insist that they don't have any strong emotions or feelings, because they've relegated those embarrassing feelings to the unconscious.

Developing an awareness of what may be relegated to the unconscious (although the unconscious remains so, its why its the unconscious) is a factor in overcoming modern character neurosis.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

This is where I'm pointing out the (partially) hard-wired aspects of these things. Even those women who consciously admire a man who is more emotionally expressive and enjoy how that lets them relate to him better, still tend to unconsciously be put off by it. Not all women, mind you, but if there is a woman you don't know, and you were to place bets, you'd bet on their unconsciously being put off by it.

I don't believe that. And you don't really know any of that.

But regardless of the cause of differences between sexes, I believe the following assessment is true: The difference between the average of all men and the average of all women is smaller than the average degree of difference between any two individuals. This means the relative impact of sex is small. When it comes to making a bet on another individual's behavior (or thoughts), it would be unwise to base a significant portion of the wager on that individual's sex. If you were going to analyze an individual, you'd extract much more value for your time out of analyzing many aspects other than their sex/gender.

I believe that part of the reason that these kinds of things are so controversial and difficult to discuss is that most people have a difficult time admitting their unconscious thoughts, in part because they legitimately consciously reject them, but also in part because they're embarrassed that they even have them. You get the same kind of pushback from young INTJs, trying to explain to them how emotions and feelings work, but they insist that they don't have any strong emotions or feelings, because they've relegated those embarrassing feelings to the unconscious.

Making inferences from the subconscious is very hazardous territory. The very nature of what the subconscious is means it is often highly questionable that one can make accurate assertions about the subconscious. Many claims about it are circular or a priori. This gives us bizarre claims like Freud's idea that men harbor a sexual desire for their mothers, and the rationalization that the feeling of disgust that most men have at the thought of having sex with their mother is actually push back coming from the shame they experience over that subconscious desire. It's easier to explain how anything is yet more proof of the undetectable subconscious. And it's bunk.

That being said, even if we do try to talk about the subconscious, we need to be clear on what that means. Something I find odd is that a lot of people seem think that the subconscious has some special relationship to evolutionary inherited traits. But it doesn't. Subconscious thoughts can be the product of socialization.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Patriarchy is bad for men too, I cant understand that anyone gets defensive when its pointed out they are supposedly a benefactor of structural injustice/oppression or privilege because any system of injustice/oppression is bad for "master" and "servant" alike, just not in the same ways but none the less bad.

Plus its generally structural in character and that's not something I would be able to personalise to my self as easily as some people on this forum or else where appear to be able to do, most of its unconscious, intergenerational and cultural in character, not "knowingly inculcated" (but insidious if it is).

That defensiveness I think is why there's even things like these language barriers, most people ought to be able to recognize that when discussion of toxic masculinity is not meant to be a simple matter of maligning the male, that's pointless, I'm sure some people do that and that it happens but its not what feminism or any anti-oppressive efforts to do with sex/gender is about.

These threads never get anywhere, I'm sad to see that they repeatedly come back and they're like a beacon for the sort of "balanced" individual who's got a chip on both shoulders.

No one is defending the idea of patriarchy. Well, Xann, maybe

I think you have a very glossed-over, fairy tale idea of how things were before and at the very advent of the women's rights movement.

I think that, while gender was always part of the equation, the greater issue for early, and arguably later, women's rights activists, was gender equality in the upper class. Many early suffragists and suufragettes were fighting for women in the privileged classes to have the same access to voting and work as their husbands, brothers and fathers. A noble cause indeed, but the dark side of it is that many of these women were still against any voting or equality for women and non-whites in the lower, working classes. They may have been fighting for an end to patriarchal government, but I don't think many of them really cared about any form of equality in the classes that may have needed it the most.

 

[Lark]

Its a good idea not to kill yourself.

Or other people.

Or your self and other people or other people and your self.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I realize that this is going to piss some people off, but I don't really care... one of the things I've noticed as a difference between Men's Rights movements and Women's Rights movements is that the women's movements encourage women to feel empowered whether they choose to take a more traditionally feminine or masculine role and the men's movements do not... they only encourage behaving in a manner of traditional masculinity, which seems like a shortcoming for men in general there

like not all women are inclined towards behaving in a traditionally feminine manner, men are the same...people are individuals and should be given treatment as such instead of treated and held to the expectations of something like gender or race or orientation. some men cry more easily (I know a navy seal who cried at the drop of a hat) and some men are more nurturing... men fear rejection and that their significant other doesn't love them as much as they love them and some men don't want to be the breadwinner of their household. if men's rights was truly for men's rights, it would be promoting the ability of men to be who they really are instead of trying to fit them into a specific role and "type", so to say.

just a note on the thread as it's turned out... still need to read the articles in the OP... sorry

I'm glad you joined the discussion

That is debatable. Warren Farrell, who many would consider some sort of spiritual father to Mens Rights movements (bear in mind he was a feminist at one point and strongly aligned with figures such as Gloria Steinem), has actually favored not so much a return to traditional roles as he has a move toward a 21st century redefining or reexamining of male roles. His biggest qualm with the feminist community and which ultimately led to his split with them was not that they weren't in favor of traditional male roles but that the push for redefinition of women roles was not being matched with a push for a redefining of male roles. When he tried to push to include mens' roles and male rights in the discussion, he was met with indifference, anger, and ultimately excommunicated from the movement. A similar process occurred with Erin Pizzey and Christina Hoff Sommers. Neither of these women were pushing for a return to traditional gender roles either.

The Men's Rights movement is pretty borad and diverse, so yes, there are some in that movement who would very much advocate that men only behave in a manner of traditional masculinity, but this is in no way true for all in that movement.

In discussions between Karen Straughan and Alison Tieman on their Rantzerker series, they've occasionally made the arguments that it is in fact current feminists who are inadvertently advocating a return to traditional ideas of femininity for women by pushing a narrative that women are, by nature, helpless victims who need to be coddled and separated into "safe spaces," with male feminists often acting in the roles of the white knights that exist to serve and protect their weaker counterparts. That's some medievalized view of the genders, if there ever was one.

Teddy Roosevelt, whipping posts, yadda yadda.

- - - Updated - - -

[MENTION=19700]Anaximander[/MENTION] Oh, I've read it! Seemed like a total hoax lol

I'm certain it is either

A) a hoax

B) a guy writing a sort of veiled cry for help.

 

[Lark]

Because they cant get time to read all the books they own.

Or havent enough time for hobbies and work.

Just adding to the list of reasons so far as I can think of them.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

This is the reason I decided a while back to just counsel women. I am a woman and I understand the woman experience. I understand men in context of being a woman, not from the context of being a man, which is what men mostly need when undergoing counseling and stuff.

I think desegregation of the genders can be fun, but can also be harmful in many ways. This idea that anyone can be either sex and that anyone can understand the opposite sex is just foolish. Maybe some few rare persons can, but for the most part, a man needs a man to relate to in many ways. And if he cannot find a sympathetic male, than an open-minded female is the next best thing.

Isn't feminism becoming outdated for the drivel that it spews, yet?

Hi, AGA

I'm not really advocating for the segregation of the genders, but if women and men are going to continue to occupy the same spaces of work, play, etc, both need to be sensitive and tolerant of the others' biological differences, but at the same time not view one another in a way that they would limit them or make excuses for them solely on gender.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The difference between the average of all men and the average of all women is smaller than the average degree of difference between any two individuals. This means the relative impact of sex is small. When it comes to making a bet on another individual's behavior (or thoughts), it would be unwise to base a significant portion of the wager on that individual's sex. If you were going to analyze an individual, you'd extract much more value for your time out of analyzing many aspects other than their sex/gender.

I agree with this statement

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Because they cant get time to read all the books they own.

Or havent enough time for hobbies and work.

Just adding to the list of reasons so far as I can think of them.

I like how you continue to take little pot shots, then retreat without bringing any real voice or substance into debates/discussions.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Hi, AGA

I'm not really advocating for the segregation of the genders, but if women and men are going to continue to occupy the same spaces of work, play, etc, both need to be sensitive and tolerant of the others' biological differences, but at the same time not view one another in a way that they would limit them or make excuses for them solely on gender.

I agree we should all LOVE our neighbor. Gender has little to do with that.

But gender makes us act very differently, and be in the world in very different ways.

I agree with this statement

I absolutely disagree.

You think men and women are more similar than two male espts, for example?

Men and women are very different. Period. Yes, there are similarities. But the differences are astounding.

Those who want to homogenize the sexes are just asserting their right to see the world in a certain way, and it illustrates their admiration for unisex ideals and androgyny. Which is fine. But it is not the truth.

 

[Lark]

It is heresy, it is the corruption of chaos, it is Nurgle!

 

[Cellmold]

I haven't read all 16 pages, but since this puts terminology to something I've noticed in myself and others for a long time.....are there any solutions?

Is it merely about creating a more accurate social perception of what actually happens to both men and women in the various cultures and societies of the world? On an individual level can mindfulness help? Or is it also part of a combination of problems so it would require a number of different solutions to each specific problem that makes up the whole?

The social perfectionism and fear of failure is an unpleasant situation to be in; compounded by neuroticisms and anxieties. I know that in myself I make this into a huge issue that I think could be combated somewhat by efforts of mindfulness, but I think there are also other underlying issues that make that difficult. Number one being that placing of value on your skills and what you can provide, if my stresses are partly from work then leaving to find other work is hard without the skills necessary to market myself.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I thought all suicide was linked to loss of hope.

Feeling like no matter what, life will never change, never get better. And is not worth living.

And the pain is unendurable.

 

[Xann]

Agree partly with this first part. I think many feminists' approach to helping men are flawed, because they have this "let's teach men to be the good kind of men" approach rather than simply letting them be what they need to be. Where we disagree, I think, is in your assumption that all men should naturally fit some particular mold of masculinity to be attractive to the opposite sex? I think what women are attracted to is going to vary from woman to woman, not mention depending on the circumstances, i.e. pregnant women preferring different male traits to ovulating women--there have been studies on this, and I will try to find them to share in this thread.

I don't think that's the answer. As a number of other members have already pointed out, not all people will fit a specific mold of being, and trying to teach or force them to be something they aren't cannot be healthy for those individuals.

Nah, you misunderstand me a little, although I suppose I should have expected that kind of interpretation with the kind of avatar I'm using. Masculinity has a thousand different molds, where feminists go wrong is in trying to associate the different forms of masculinity with some form of related traditional femininity when in reality that is not how masculinity manifests even among the more sensitive and thoughtful men whom feminists would desire to pin some of the traditional female roles and virtues on. It's not about forcing anyone to fit a particular mold, it's about ending this backwards "men are supposed to become more like women to balance things out" because that doesn't benefit anyone, male or female, only the misguided feminists who don't really understand men or human sexuality. (And nor do they care to after thinking that way long enough, it's more about cherry-picking facts to suit their biases.)