Previous post
Next post
You wouldn’t think feminists would whine about more men committing suicide than women, but hey, never underestimate their ridiculousness. Over at Feministing, apparently they’re upset that an MSNBC article is chronicling the uptrends in male suicide due to economic pressures. Here’s an excerpt from the MSNBC article:
The numbers are so gut-churning, it’s like looking over a bridge railing. Nearly 26,000 men took their own lives in 2005. That’s nearly four times the number of women who did the same thing, even though three times more women than men attempt suicide. (For every completed suicide by a man or woman, 25 attempts fail.)
Whereas a woman might swallow pills halfheartedly, a man is four times more likely to complete the act, mostly because men tend to use guns — and their aim is true. As grim as that sounds, it gets worse. Mark S. Kaplan, Dr.P.H., who researches suicide at Oregon’s Portland State University, believes the suicide death toll may be up to 25 percent higher than officially recorded. Many single-car accidents seem mysterious. When an overdose occurs and toxicology results are ambiguous, as in the case of Heath Ledger, was it a tragic accident or an exit strategy? Some medical examiners will certify a death as suicide only if the victim leaves a note, and yet only about 20 percent of people who kill themselves do so. Sometimes insurance companies pay the survivors less, or nothing at all, in cases of suicide. The denial of friends and family is a factor, too: It’s less painful to think a loved one didn’t die by his or her own hand.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Violent Death Reporting System, which tracks the circumstances surrounding violent deaths (including suicides), might be able to sort all this out — if it were funded in more than 17 states.
There’s always an internal detonator with suicide, but an external spark helps light the fuse. One factor that comes along every few generations is economic distress. During the Great Depression, when banks went bust and people’s life savings vanished, suicide rates soared. Another instigator: large numbers of veterans returning from armed conflict, many of them with troubled (or injured) minds, lousy job prospects, and fractured families. Which begins to explain why suicidologists, who study the phenomenon, are feeling a little edgy themselves these days. “For those who serve in the military, the suicide risk may be even greater considering multiple deployments, possible brain trauma from concussive blasts, and combat-relatedpost-traumatic stress,” says David A. Jobes, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at the Catholic University of America. “This may be a uniquely dangerous moment for young American men and suicide, given the recent economic upheaval.”
Doesn’t seem too shocking, right? I mean, the article was pretty much right on. According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, men commit suicide almost four times as often as women do. While women attempt suicide more often, men succeed much more. Yet, when Feministing blogger “ekd” saw this, she didn’t see an article addressing a legitimate concern. Oh no. According to her, MSNBC was suggesting that women don’t suffer in tough times!
My first thought was, “So, women can’t have economic concerns that are that important, now?”
I understand that this is coming entirely from a patriarchial perspective – that men have to support their families, and thus losing a job or having a family financial crisis is seen as a failure on their part. However, there are HOW many women today that support their own children and pay their own bills as single mothers or otherwise?
The subtitle of the article “War, debt and joblessness causing emotional distress for many young men”doesn’t seem like something that should be primarly male – those are issues that are enough to make anyone depressed!
The article tries to make male suicide seem more pressing by stating that more men actually do go through with suicide than women, and calls women taking pills “halfhearted”. This just reads like a continuation of the ever-present portrayal of male psychological problems (when addressed) as a “serious concern”, while women are considered “silly”.
Instead of worrying about how men are affected by job loss or economic issues, can we focus on how these affect the mental health of ALL affected?
Yes. She really got the point of that article. Mention how an economic recession may be causing an uptrend in male suicides, and it automatically means that you think that women don’t suffer AT ALL. Apparently, the use of the word “halfheartedly” was enough to condemn the entire article.
I would have thought it was a good thing that, in stressful times, women are not committing suicide. Isn’t that a positive? But I guess not. I’m assuming this must be the same line of logic where it’s a good thing to have the same number of women dying in wars as there are men, which is another thing I completely don’t understand. But I forgot — we’re dealing in feminism’s warped sense of equality. An article brings up a very true and very worrying trend of male suicides in times of economic hardship, and because you don’t devote exactly equal space to how economic hardship affects women, it automatically makes it SEXIST!!
She later “clarified” her position in the comments, saying:
My comment is that they link men’s suicide being linked to the current economic situation. They’re saying that because of the current situation, men are killing themselves. There’s a lot more to it than that – women are just as affected as men, if not more.
I guess to make it “equal”, MSNBC should promptly run an equally long article specifically detailing how many and how often women commit suicide because of economic hardships. Otherwise, MSNBC is — wait for it — just another tool for the PATRIARCHY.
For what it’s worth, yes, men are affected much more by financial troubles. For most men, there is an innate pressure to be the provider for their family, and if they feel they are failing at that, it can affect them profoundly. The feminist response to this is, of course, to further demasculinize men, because how dare a man insinuate it’s his responsibility to provide for his wife and children? She’s just as capable as he is! The feminist response just goes to show exactly how woeful the feminist understanding of men is.
I’m just curious what it is that makes a feminist blogger see something like this and get offended. Do we need to just start ignoring all problems that may focus solely on men and only concentrate on women? Maybe we should figure out a way to give women prostate cancer now, too, so that we can make it really and truly equal.
Honestly, feminists grow more ridiculous by the day.
J David says: I can guarantee you that these same blithering-idiot women are the biggest defenders of open male homosexuality and gay marriage, which is just one more hit on the numbers of available men for these retarded women to marry, strip of their finances and then divorce. What is so incredibly funny, if one is not considering the end of our civilization this foreshadows, is that there are substantially more women than men in Western populations, yet they are doing everything in their power to turn men away from then, deplete their numbers, and make themselves undesirable and/or dangerous to consort with.
posterior_sling says: “I’m just curious what it is that makes a feminist blogger see something like this and get offended.”
Good point, Cassy. It demonstrates such a jealous demeanor. Perhaps the poor young person is suicidal itself. I hope it will seek professional help. (It is so edgy, I’m doing my best to stay genderly generic.)
How anyone could have read that and chosen to ignore the tragedy of death and all the surrounding emotions is perplexing, to say the least.
I noticed where you emphasized “men succeed much more,” and I expected that to be it’s main point of contention. It must have been so caught up in itself that it forgot all the hot points. Or, perhaps, sexistly, it was omitted intentionally.
This may end up being an absolute tangent irrelevent to this event, but very relevent to division in general, (which, if no one has noticed IS THE MAIN PROBLEM IN THE U.S. OF AMERICA): I find it ironic that humanists don’t put humanity first. They are more interested in everything they think they can control.
Ugh, Men, Women, different.
Equal is a mathmatical concept, not a biological one. The fact that two different sexes are different, is just a biological fact. It can not be changed.
Some thing like thireen men die from work related accidents as do women. Men tend to take more dangerous jobs. Shall we demand that women become contruction workers and oil riggers just to even out the statistics?
J David says: Yes, DavidL, WE SHOULD! I would very much like to see such a complete boycott, and its results, after about one day. I see all these little 5’5″ women in these action movies going around karate-chopping guys up into pieces, and women cops duking it out with bad guys, and I laugh my fanny off. I have known a number of women who really though that kinda stuff was remotely possible in reality because they have bought the feminist fantasy hook-line-and-sinker.
posterior_sling says: On that issue of division, I think it appropriate to dedicate space to it, rather than run off into it where another important issue is at stake. America is set to be unable to solve its divison for two reasons. One, we think diversity is good. Two, all attempts to unite are being made with attention to the symptoms of the cause of our failure when we need a cure, not a(nother) drop of peroxide on a cancer lesion. This is a threefold trauma and we recognize one, at best, two folds only.
The folds:
The Results. That’s the one we all see.
The Failure. That’s the one some see (and half of those deny).
The Cause. That’s the one almost no one sees and makes the rest feel helpless .
Thus the gravity of the problem and our pending demise. The Cause must be cured or the Failure will continue and the Results worsen. Yet we continue to deal on the Results level, deny the Failure and say “what Cause?”.
This is not the space I intend to dedicate to that issue and only with Cassy’s permission will I take the space to offer my draft dedicated to finding America’s feet again. It’s not short, but it’s not that long either. It shoots (sorry anti-gunners) straight at the heart and is not apologetic, but if we don’t start dodging bullets, we’ve taken nearly enough already to do the job. It’s time we find our shields and call the Surgeon.
Watch for my next comment. I’ll accept your decision, Cassy, when I submit it. No need to reply to this. On my side of the coin, the matter warrants me not being concerned with the trivialities of copyrights et. al. when the import is in the knowing and acceptance of the content. For my concern, feel free to copy it, share it, email it to everyone you know. You can even claim it, if you’ve the nerve to be seen in that place. I don’t care. Just read it. Then decide. Think what you want of me. I don’t care. Agree or disagree, just get off the line and take a side. Somehow we seem to think standing on the line is unity. I believe that is referred to in some claim to power I read somewhere as ‘lukewarm.’ Rather to be hot or cold. Take a look.
posterior_sling says: The Sermon
We (the people) want a good economy. We don’t understand why it is all out of sorts. Though we know a house divided shall not stand, we may not know that is a principle truth established and revealed by Scripture. Therefore, we think of unity as though claiming it is sufficient. Slogans are frequent, “United We Stand,” “Support Our Troops,” “God Bless America,” etc, etc. And these are all good notions. They help pull us together – somewhat. But, I ask you, if we band together for the sake of the cause of each slogan, are we actually united? Again, somewhat. In all of our striving for unity, we dare not enter into the realm of religion, yet that is the only unity that will remedy our woes. Especially being that the adversity is about religion. Our hand is being forced. Still we refuse to talk about it. We don’t even want to reveal it. In fact, we would rather just categorize it into our own definition and description of equality. The irony here is there is no equality without God. Yet in our efforts to create a new definition of equality, we remove God from our society. Are you even getting a glimpse, yet, or just resisting the fact that I have mentioned God? Our children can’t pray or know the Ten Commandments. Public places cannot display the Nativity. Christmas is about Santa and Easter is about some fictitious rabbit, candy and eggs. So, as we slap the hand of God, how do we expect him to apply it to our finances? (And, believe this, there is no schism in his economy.) That brings me to prayer. What makes us believe if we pray, even in our own understanding of believing, that God will lower his gigantic, invisible hand and start fixing things? Back to the house divided. Though we attempt to pull ourselves together over issues, WE DO IT ALWAYS TRYING TO RESPECT THE DIFFERENT GODS WE CARRY AROUND IN OUR HEARTS, HEADS OR POCKETS, AS THE CASE MAY BE. Not only that, but we try justifying it by saying, “Oh, there is only one God, but all roads lead to him.” Well, my contention is One God will not counter himself and his efforts by the recognition of roads that make another road false. Let’s see if I can reiterate that to a more specific example. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If you had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.” John 14:6-7 That pretty much makes every other doctrine false, or the very words of Jesus are a lie to the person that accepts another religion or all other religions, directly or indirectly. There is one God. There is one mediator between God and men. 1Tim 2:5 There are many gods. We (the people) are in a position to believe and truly unite, or just keep contributing to the turmoil. God’s hand is the collective hand of the people who are his instruments. Instrumentality is determined one way only. By the willful decision to believe. Not join. Not be good. Not say God Bless America. Only believe. Mark 5:36 Normally I “preach” without direct reference, but in this case you will see the claim of God without doubt. Now, you are free. Free to believe or not believe. Accept or deny. That is your freedom. And that is about all we will have left of freedom, if we don’t cause God to be allowed back in our society (or for the sake of point, house.) A house divided shall not stand. Matthew 12:25 I don’t care if you can pull every single citizen together over any slogan, say for instance, “United We Stand,” if there are many gods in the house, you are yet divided. End of story. And the ultimate destruction will occur in a house divided over how Unity should take place. How blasted blind are you (we, for allowing it)?! It’s a situation very similar to the human body. Though there is a great need for doctors also, you can go to a doctor and pour in drugs to remedy symptoms or you can nutrify your diet, thereby giving the body the strength to heal itself and grow healthy. We keep dealing with the symptoms of our Nation’s ailment, rather than giving it the strength to heal itself and remain healthy. We chase after every wind that blows, rather than set our sail to the benefit of the boat. Put prayer back in schools. Put the nativity up at central parks and city halls. Reverence God personally, when you go to bed, when you wake up, while you drive, work and play, and first of all, answer the door when Jesus knocks, let him in and tell a friend. Then you will see the hand of God begin to arrange things. Then God will honor our prayers. Then God’s power will be positive and progressive rather than judgmental in America. You see, God IS blessing America, we just don’t like the food we have to eat. You make your kids eat their vegetables. Eat yours. And if you want dessert, you’ll finish your meal. And if you want a meal that is more sumptuous, stop eating over at your friend’s (divided) house. God’s realm is still paved with gold, has pearl doorknobs and perfect peace working in its society. Let me clue some of the believers in. Change the tense within which you live. i.e. from future to present. You have eternal life, you are resurrected and a citizen of God’s Kingdom. Don’t think of these as some magical moment that will take place when you die. You’ve accepted Christ, enter into his life and kingdom. Dual citizenship is accepted. Pray in his name more than verbally. Cause a remedy in America. You’ve asked for it and the answer is, okay, go get it.
J David says: Real prophets are always hated by the cultures they call to repentance, that don’t repent, and then whose doom they subsequently must foretell.
If there is a point-of-no-return, as there was for Old Testament Israel and Judah, for a nation, we must be getting awful close to it.
Squatch says: It’s quite simple, really. The article threatens the victim status that feminists hold to be so valuable. Feminist mantra is, “Women are victims, men are powerful oppressors”. Anything – anything – that threatens that status is to be squashed.
“Economy plunges further into recession. Women and minorities hardest hit. Tune in for details at 10 PM.”
posterior_sling says: RE: My very last line, “You’ve asked for it and the answer is, okay, go get it.”
I am referencing our prayers. Do not think the answer is so hard to find. Sometimes it is No, but other times we only think it is No, because we neglect our own freedom to choose.
ps Cassy, thanks for the space. I only hope America can soon be thankful, as we even ought to be right now.
Don says: The feminitwit’s rantings unintendedly show us a couple of things.
First, leftists cannot be trusted to treat scientific data with intellectual honesty. Rather than seeing cold, hard reality in the suicide numbers, her all-men-are-rapists-and-monsters religion demands that she demonstrate how “unfair” it is to view the present economic distress as adversely affecting men at a greater rate than women. We cannot trust leftists with science, as everything is political to them. Anthropogenic global warming? Polar Ice? Ozone holes? These are not science issues to be investigated objectively, but to the left they are issues of political power (over us).
Next, this womyn shows us what “fair” in the fairness doctrine would mean – deny reality, even in the face of data that calls for an obvious conclusion. A media outlet wouldn’t even be able to quote data from scientific studies without offering room for rebuttal. Where I live, there has been a TV commercial of late indicating more men die of testicular cancer than women of breast cancer (in my state). If the “fairness doctrine” were in place, how would they politicize that? Just as she did with the suicide numbers – deny reality and insist that the numbers are meaningless as long as more men are affected than women. Let the numbers reverse, and it will be a national crisis. These womyn just hate men, period.
Cousin Dave says: “women are just as affected as men, if not more.”
Actually, if you go solely by the recently relesed unemployment numbers, no they aren’t. Over the last quarter, unemployment increased by 1.1 million men. I say it that way because the stats show that women’s employment actually *increased* slightly over that time period. Women aren’t losing their jobs. It’s men who are.
posterior_sling says: Here’s another one to take a shot at. Mountain Dew makes it perfectly clear that men are more likely to be struck by lightening. (TV commercial)
Steve L. says: men commit suicide almost four times as often as women do. While women attempt suicide more often, men succeed much more
One more thing that men are better at than women. 😉
13 Comments