Why Men Kill themselves

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Humanist

Cool. Like Gene Roddenberry

 

[Lark]

This sums up my thoughts well on nature vs. nurtue. Just like we thought IQ was first learned, then genetic and now a mix of both. I think further research into consciousness and how it relates to unconscious & subconscious cognition will not only put the final nail into the coffin of free will but move us closer to biodterminism.

Sociobiological research has obscured as much as it has revealed, most of the discoveries about the unconscious or affect driven decision making has been with the aim of greater exercise of free will and not calling time on that particular concept.

I think there's a mix of nature and nurture but I believe that the extent to which society is ontologically a prior to the individual has yet to be totally understood, the mind and consciousness is a property beyond the brain, the extent to which the I is a social phenomenon is going to distress when its fully understood I think, although its not going to invalid free will.

 

[Poki]

And thats why intuition has it purpose. To break the cycle of a bad experience. Very right what you said.

What does intuition have anything to do with it? All you have to do is open your eyes to see the issues of he world and see them for what they are. Intuition will lead you on some side tangent about it.

 

[Lark]

Humanist

Androgynous.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

I think there's a mix of nature and nurture but I believe that the extent to which society is ontologically a prior to the individual has yet to be totally understood, the mind and consciousness is a property beyond the brain, the extent to which the I is a social phenomenon is going to distress when its fully understood I think, although its not going to invalid free will.

Every now and then, albeit rarely, a gem drops out, like the one above. So condescending of me, I know. I blame my anti-commie bias. See, there i go... Moral agency and law & order will need a serious patch. Alhough, free will will remain around as a useful linguistic short cut ala "free will dun it". We shall see

 

[geedoenfj]

I'm saying a husband and wife are equal.

Men and women are equal in terms of human rights, but they're different psychologically and physiologically and ignoring these differences is going against justice to both of them..

No our minds aren't really different. Women and men both have testosterone and estrogen, one just has more than the other, that's the only difference.

Male and female minds have same IQ and same capabilities I agree on that..
In my example of kids they didn't have testosterone and estrogen yet, the gender of a fetus is determined by XX female and XY male chromosomes, and no hormones can change chromosomes as far as I know..

. Men are socialized to be tough and not have feelings and women are socialized to be nurturers and emotional and if you don't fit that "role" you're seen as weird. I literally saw a "men's" deodorant at the store that said "Men don't go to the doctor unless something breaks." That's socialization right there. Society literally teaching men that it's not okay to ask for help when they need it. To care about their health. Because that's "girly." Kids don't "buy" or not buy consciously, that's the point of socialization.
Why shouldn't it be okay for a man to be "girly" or a woman to be "manly" if that's what they naturally are like?? They should not be forced into a role that they don't fit.

If you read my previous posts I talked about that and I agree to some level of what you have mentioned, and we should stop forcing people to fit into certain stereotypes of a typical male or a typical female (most people do not typically fit into them by the way including myself) and not everyone is interested in attracting the opposite sex, I do what make me feel comfortable with who I am and the significant other should accept me for all my goods and flaws, but likewise; I don't agree on going against culture or forcing women to be more masculine and men to be more feminine as if we're trying to prove something, we are talking about culture and society as they're evil or a bad thing, while I think we should only eliminate injustice rules within the culture, and find a balance between our personal preferences on one hand and values and the society and culture on the other hand..
Sociality is only a part of a sexual identity along with other factors..

No, this does NOT mean families are going to go extinct. They haven't yet. And women haven't changed over the years. They're just being more vocal about inequality now.

I'm from more family oriented culture, but I think If western countries keep spreading that mentality, that what would actually happen, there are some parts and cities in the world which became extinct or under threat of becoming extinct, Europe is suffering from high ratios of older people and less new-borns, add to that the average age is around 70s and 80s, that would result in more old people that needs to be taken care of than young generation that would contribute to the society's development..

This is not true, at all.

Oh well

 

[Yama]

[MENTION=26281]geedoenfj[/MENTION] I'm on my phone so mentioning is easier than quoting hehe

I am not saying we should force this mentality on anyone. I am saying we shouldn't judge anyone who goes against the norm. I have no problem with people who would prefer to stay within their gender role of that it their choice. But people should also not be limited to that role.

 

[highlander]

Thanks for sharing that Highlander.

Question, was your friend a sole provider?

In either case, I think the dual earner family is becoming the norm, if for no other reason than to compete with the Joneses. This development may help men deal with a loss of income more readily when their partner can pickup the slack.

He was a sole provider though his wife was a nurse and could have worked if she wanted to. She's working now.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

This is my first post in the thread. I skimmed the thread, and I've been seeing a number of posts about how men are bad at handling emotions, have no support networks, etc. So I just want to provide some historical background here:

Historically, men had excellent support networks. The "old boy network," and all that. Fifty years ago, when society was more segregated by sex, men had lots of male-only organizations and social groups: Lodges, golf clubs, fraternities, rod and gun clubs, sporting clubs and events, etc. When I joined the military in the 70s, the Marines were still all-male; women had their own military forces (WACs, WAFs, WAVEs and WMs). And in fact we men were pretty good at relating to each other's crises. We sat around the barracks and compared stories about how we dealt with women, or consoled someone going through a hard break-up, etc. Sometimes it was like a knitting circle. We would sit around, polish boots, clean our guns, and just BS into the late hours.

Today, of course, a lot of that old-time male support network is gone. Nowadays, frats are looked at as rape factories. Male sports teams are derided as gangs of closeted gays. Male-only clubs and lodges have basically been made illegal. And the few remaining corners of male shared interest (rod and gun clubs, poker games, etc.) are seen as disreputable expressions of maleness: Knuckle-dragging neanderthals, etc. Even MRA websites are derided as toxic and misogynistic.

And *some* of it is due to feminism. *Some* of those traditional male support networks were specifically targeted for lawsuits and other disruption by early feminists under the principle that the exclusion of females amounted to discrimination against females. The "old boy network" was seen as hostile to feminism. And there was some legitimate historical justification to that thinking. But the pendulum has swung so far that nowadays it's seen as "empowering" when women get together to socialize with each other, but it's disreputable for men to socialize in large groups. I recently checked Meetup.com in a local city; there were at least half a dozen different groups offering various social events specifically for women ("Girls' night out" groups), but none specifically for men. Men were in charge of narrowly-focused activity groups, like kayaking groups or gaming groups; but there weren't any groups specifically for men or for general socializing for men. I think in this day and age, a men's group for general socializing would be seen as creepy or un-PC, like it's going to turn into a PUA venue or a militia group or something.

To sum up: I'm not saying any of this is good or bad. Things had to change over time. Once upon a time, men had extensive social networks and women were relatively isolated in the home. To bring women into the workforce and the power structure, it was necessary to break up the male hegemony somewhat. But now the pendulum has swung so far that male social groups are seen as shady and disreputable; and men have become so isolated that we now talk like it's some kind of psychological "truism" that men are incapable of relating to each other or their own emotions.

And yes, feminism is partly to blame for men's isolation. Feminists literally launched lawsuits to break down the male social networks of old. It was probably needed; change had to come. But still, feminists can't totally duck blame for where men are at right now.

 

[Coriolis]

No, I'm giving examples of how each person has different needs, in case of men and women they have different roles, different nature, and of course different needs

No. Individuals have different natures and choose different roles. For the most part we all have the same fundamental human needs. Differences in how those needs are best met depend far more on age, medical issues, lifestyle, personal tastes, even location, with a large influence from economic status/available resources. Sex is lost in the noise except in the case of some specialized medical concerns and specific functions in human reproduction. The whole Mars/Venus contrast is mostly T/F anyway.

So how do you apply this reasoning to trans people? Are they "born differently" and therefore need to be the opposite sex, or are they "socialized" into believing that they ought to be the opposite sex?

This has always mystified me. I have wondered how much of the sense of being the wrong sex comes from failing to identify with gender roles vs. actual physiology. That is, if society were 100% free of any gender-based expectations, would trans people still feel like they were in the wrong bodies? I am not trans, and don't know any trans people well enough to discuss this with them, so my personal knowledge here is very limited. I have read accounts that seem to be saying it is exactly that for some trans people: their body seems alien to them, and if/when they can have corrective surgery, they feel much better adjusted. To me, this seems different only in degree from wanting body piercings, or a nose job, or different hair color. That is, it cannot (yet) address basic functionality (e.g. provide reproductive functions), and thus is mostly about appearance. I know this comment might seem offensive, and apologize to anyone who might find it insensitive. I am sharing the thoughts only to answer how one person applies reasoning to the trans experience, knowing it may be way off the mark.

Agreed, in general principle. The main problem is that culture doesn't work like that. Even with a culture that says it is OK to be a stay-at-home dad, you have to find an individual who is willing to put you up as a stay-at-home dad. Culturally, that's going to be rather difficult, as such individuals will tend to be rare, at least for the next generation or so.

Agreed. Culture and social norms do not change overnight. If they truly reflect hard-wired tendencies, though, they will not change at all.

My answer to the nature vs nurture debate has always been "both". A human being is a complex system. Asserting that all psychological traits are "socialized" is an extremely strong scientific claim, as it would involve actually proving that no psychological traits are innate (or, at least, not generated by socialization). Even narrowing this to the question of gender, it's still an extremely strong assertion to say it's all nurture.

Pseudoscientific polemics notwithstanding, science finds evidence for both nature and nurture, and the question isn't whether it's nature or nurture so much as it is "which traits are nature, which are nurture and which are a mix?" Most brain studies are like this, for example, where scientists discover that things are way more complex than they previously thought. While brains tend to have particular tendencies, the mind turns out to be VERY plastic, or at least way more plastic than we thought. The whole right/left brain thing has been mostly discredited - there or different things on the right and left, but apparently left-handed people have them switched, and various kinds of brain damage or drug use can push things all over the brain map.

So, I would say to you that the same way you feel that you are trans with no explanation (and a socialization explanation seems unlikely), that I feel as a guy that nothing socialized me to like girls and have masculine attitudes. Where I see socialization occurring is with regard to how society (mostly unconsciously) directs those masculine energies (and feminine energies w/r to women and m->f trans). No hard proof, here, of course, but I see these energies as kind of essential to human nature, strongly linked to testosterone levels, and you can't socialize away the energies, but you CAN socialize how those energies are expressed.

There is no question that men and women are different. The more pertinent question is in what ways are they different, and what can we conclude from that? We all know about the differences in reproductive organs and general body makeup (average size, fat vs. muscle distributions, certain facial features, etc.) Then there are hormones, which again differ mainly in relative amounts, even from man to man and woman to woman. Researchers have found differences in brain chemistry and how different parts of the brain are "wired".

Extrapolating from these well-documented matters of physiology, however, to statements like "men are this way and women are that" is quite another matter. As you say, the brain is complex and very plastic. I suspect that the somewhat different brain wiring and chemical makeup of men and women mostly lead to the same tendencies, reactions, and instincts when presented with the same stimuli, circumstances, and problems. This is where the "nurture" part comes in.

And in my opinion if women keep spreading this mentality of not wanting to have a family, that would effect her and the society negatively on the long run, on a personal level because she'd realize how important it was to have a family and someone whom her life is important and valuable to, and on society level because if there's less women likely to have families, then there will be very little number of next generations and societies would substantially become extinct..

First, we hardly need worry that humanity will become extinct, at least from this cause. If anything, fewer women having children will help to ease world overpopulation. More to your point, though, it is worth considering why men are not reluctant to have a family. I suspect it is because they have not been expected to forego a career in order to have one, to put the rest of their life on hold to be at the beck and call of spouse and children. If we continue to support women in not having to choose one or the other as well, having a family would become more appealing.

This is not true, at all.

Event the early 60's sitcom "My three sons" had that one figured out; a man can be every bit as good as a mother.

Egalitarian? Or is there another word?

Would such a society be better equipped to handle and more sensitive to the issue of suicide with both sexes?

Gethenian. And yes, I suspect such a society would be more sensitive to everyone's needs and issues, seeing them first and foremost as humans.

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about the wage gap. It's so much more complicated than most people realize.

Despite my leftist leanings, it's frustrating that liberal and progressive politicians continue to drill the misconception into the public consciousness

The wage gap is not a misconception, but it is indeed more complicated than many describe it. It cannot be fixed without understanding its real causes, for which women are as much "to blame" as men.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The claim sits on unstable ground, since the "modern iterations of the male" are not modern at all, and not drawn in response to criticisms of men as "privileged, violent abusers." I also don't think the womens' rights movement has painted men as "privileged, violent abusers." That's a misunderstanding of what's being said, IMO. Some men ARE violent, and some men DO abuse, but as nice guys on the internet are so fond of saying, "not all men." No one in the mainstream has painted men AS A WHOLE as violent abusers. I don't know that the author understands what is meant by "privilege," either, since in the concept it's not a character flaw but an accident of birth circumstances.

/eyeroll

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

We have a rather strong genetic drive to be of some use to society. When we aren't, some take it harder than others.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Should start a thread about why men kill, let alone themselves, because its mainly them doing it.

Those bastards had it coming of course.

 

[GIjade]

And in my opinion if women keep spreading this mentality of not wanting to have a family, that would effect her and the society negatively on the long run, on a personal level because she'd realize how important it was to have a family and someone whom her life is important and valuable to, and on society level because if there's less women likely to have families, then there will be very little number of next generations and societies would substantially become extinct..

And would that be such a bad thing?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

It's not just men. It's white men. I think that distinction is important and has been mentioned earlier in the thread. Also the epidemic is greater than just Suicide. Drug abuse and alcoholism not to mention depression that while debilitating doesn't lead to suicide also plague this troubled subset of the population.

 

[geedoenfj]

And would that be such a bad thing?

No it's actually good and healthy

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Time to revisit a classic post: Poetry about male anxiety in a painful post-feminist world.

"Life is very pain," a poem by man.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/arts-and-entertainment/36594-pome-life-pain.html

 

[Magic Poriferan]

We have a rather strong genetic drive to be of some use to society. When we aren't, some take it harder than others.

Who's we? Men? Is that supposed to be distinct from something else? Do women like a drive to be of some use to society?

And if you mean people in general, than what's the point of this statement. That doesn't matter unless men are being especially deprived of an opportunity to be of use, which strikes me as a completely baseless claim.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Who's we? Men? Is that supposed to be distinct from something else? Do women like a drive to be of some use to society?

And if you mean people in general, than what's the point of this statement. That doesn't matter unless men are being especially deprived of an opportunity to be of use, which strikes me as a completely baseless claim.

Good grief go bother someone else.

 

[uumlau]

I'm seeing an interesting pattern, here, visible mostly because the debate has been very civil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions

Thomas Sowell calls it.

His thesis is that there are two primary visions of human nature. No one fully subscribes to either in all circumstances, but people do tend to fall into one camp or the other.

One vision assumes that human nature is flawed and essentially immutable. People, if given the chance, will tend to become complete assholes. (Those are my words, not his!) This vision he calls the "constrained vision", because those who look at the world this way believe that the purpose of society is to apply constraints so that such behavior is disallowed and is otherwise disadvantageous.

The other vision instead assumes that humans are essentially good beings, but society tends to shape what kind of people they become. Therefore, the purpose of society is to shape human beings to become better. Bad social conditions make people bad, good social conditions make people good, and so on. This vision Sowell calls the "unconstrained vision", because it sees no limits to human nature.

Some people in this thread are tending to argue, mostly a priori, that society makes men the way they are, that "gender is a social construct". That human nature is pliable and malleable and shaped by society. So of people are behaving in masculine or feminine ways, it has to be a consequence of society.

Likewise, other people in this thread are tending to argue, just as a priori, that masculine and feminine traits are innate, a part of human nature. That yes, there are variations and some men are more feminine and some women are more masculine, but by and large, such things are biologically determined, not socially determined.

Because these are both visions of how human nature works, each side implicitly rejects the other side's arguments, just as much as a physicist will reject astrology as a valid science - that there is no reason to look deeper.

That's why the arguments stop at this point and devolve to rhetoric. The goal posts move. There is no sufficient proof to prove to the other side that one vision is better than the other.

I see a couple of reasons for this. If there is a lot of truth to biological determinism (even if it is balanced out by socialogical determinism), this is seen as morally reprehensible by those of the unconstrained vision. It smacks of sexism, of racism, of all the evils that have been perpetrated in the name of some people being innately "better" than another. It makes true equality impossible, therefore it has to be false: the only alternative is to abandon one's belief system ... or move the goal posts of the arguments to a comfortable place where the matter is serious doubt.

Similarly on the constrained vision side, the notion that society forms the kind of person you are is what is reprehensible. Constraint of behavior is OK: one might think bad thoughts but not act on them. But if the unconstrained vision is true, then those bad thoughts are not OK, and we run into the problem of hate crimes and thought police.

The real truth is mixed, in my opinion. Some things are innate, and others are not. We need a constrained vision with checks and balances because people will be assholes without it. Proof? The internet. But the unconstrained vision isn't entirely wrong, either. Society does shape the kind of people we are, and this is evident over and over again, from country to country, from culture to culture. The question in any given instance is which vision is applicable.

Which vision is applicable with respect to gender? That's still too broad: some aspects are social, some are innate. I've some opinions on the matter, that I've stated elsewhere. I think that there are innate feelings and reactions that are mostly hard-wired, the same way you can't completely tame a tiger cub or a zebra, but - society can to a degree put a check on what is acceptable behavior or not. I think where the unconstrained vision starts going bad is at the point where it becomes more concerned with thought crimes than with actual behavior. Those objectionable thoughts a reflect very important and natural drives to reproduce that simply do not go away.