Men. Men. Men.

[mankytoes]

44 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Just because the U.S. culture sanctifies gun ownership it doesn't follow that we glorify murder, too. That's essentially what you're doing with the sepukku inference. 

First of all, in seppuku, it's often performed by a good friend, and not always done by yourself. 

Second of all, the cultural value in honoring seppuku isn't the death, but the redemption and the owning up to one's fault. That's categorically different from suicide as a result of depression or other emotional distresses. 

Third of all, as a result, they don't call suicides "seppuku" over there. They actually have a very different word for suicide. 

Forth of all, if you look at the media reporting of suicides in Japan, you won't see lauding, or praise, or any sort of positive take. It's seen as a tragedy, a form of weakness, and an admission to defeat. Which, you know, is the opposite of seppuku 

So please, don't use that inference again. 

I mean, you definitely do glorify murder in some senses, through some genres of music, film and television.

Ok, that's partly true, it's usually performed with a good friend, I have no idea why that is relevant though.

Exactly. So if you have fucked up in some way, it's traditionally viewed as an honourable way out. Whereas Judeo-Christian culture, it's often been viewed as the worst thing you can do. Can't you see how that would make a Japanese person more likely to kill themselves?

I know, seppuku is a specific traditional act of ritual suicide, I didn't say seppuku was the Japanese word for suicide.

Maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a tradition of viewing suicide in a somewhat positive, respectable light, that you don't have in other countries. It would be very naive to think you can change centuries of cultural influence by a few decades of media reporting.

No, because I think it's true. You haven't offered any alternate reasons for the high sucide rate in Japan. I do think there are other reasons, but I think this is one of them, and without addressing the true reasons for something, you can't change it. This is hardly an unusual opinion that I hold, and there is good evidence behind it. For example- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan#Cultural_attitude_toward_suicide

"The cultural heritage of suicide as a noble tradition still has some resonance. While being investigated for an expenses scandal, Cabinet minister Toshikatsu Matsuoka took his life in 2007. The former governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, described him as a "true samurai" for preserving his honour."

Can you imagine someone being described in similar terms for killing themselves in another country?

Why do Japan and other countries find suicide to be particularly common in men? I think part of the reason is that we are often told through media that we are the expendable gender- http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender

[Week]

27 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Why do Japan and other countries find suicide to be particularly common in men? I think part of the reason is that we are often told through media that we are the expendable gender- http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender

Seriously? This is arguing more that an expendable character is more likely to be male (as much as the gender of random henchMAN matter) rather than anything else. I mean, this isn't the suffering olympics -- but you can't possibly make the argument that the media is more negative towards men than women.

[mormont]

11 hours ago, Eggegg said:

Yes what I read suggested that women are more likely to use the attempt as a cry for help.

One theory is that there is a strong correlation between male suicide rates and the individualistic nature of the society in which they live:

"In 2003, a group of sociologists examined the gender and suicide gap by considering how cultural factors impacted suicide rates. The four cultural factors; power-difference, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity, were measured for 66 countries using data from the World Health Organization.^[Cultural beliefs regarding individualism were most closely tied to the gender gap; countries that placed a higher value on individualism showed higher rates of male suicide. Power-difference, defined as the social separation of people based on finances or status, was negatively correlated with suicide. However, countries with high levels of power-difference had higher rates of female suicide.The study ultimately found that stabilizing cultural factors had a stronger effect on suicide rates for women than men."

I guess there might something in that, you could say that in a society where men are really lacking any sort of purpose and direction, and have little meaning in their lives, its hard to see what there is to live for. Previously they might have stayed alive due to responsibilities to others, but if they don't have those then maybe the decision is easier for them

Any reason why you didn't link the source of your quote? Reading the source might well help us to understand what the authors mean by key terms such as 'stabilising cultural factors'. Your last paragraph seems to be making some assumptions about that. 

[mankytoes]

7 hours ago, Week said:

Seriously? This is arguing more that an expendable character is more likely to be male (as much as the gender of random henchMAN matter) rather than anything else. I mean, this isn't the suffering olympics -- but you can't possibly make the argument that the media is more negative towards men than women.

I'm not saying that the media is overall more negative, just that male lives are specifically seen as more expendable. Think "women and children first". That's arguably infantilising to women, grouping them with children, but it's also clearly telling men their lives are more expendable. Or how the news often talks of evil groups "murdering women and children"- obviously they murder men as well, but that's only to be expected.

There is a biological argument here as well- a society can survive better with a small number of men than women. But I'm always cautious to mention those on here, people seem very offended at the idea that biology could affect anything socially.

[Eggegg]

12 hours ago, Week said:

When? Where? At what point did suddenly men America, Britain, Canada, etc. lose purpose, direction, and meaning in their lives? You seem to be making the argument that men require women to marry them and stay at home in order to have responsibilities that, in turn, give meaning to their lives. Is this what you are saying?

I'd say most individualistic societies give their citizens freedom and far more choice than ever before. With that comes a potential lack of direction and purpose, as we try to answer the big questions like 'what are we here for', 'what am I supposed to do with my life'. Couple this with a decline in religion and there is a lack of anyone telling you HOW you should live your life. Sometimes people need that. 

We are also moving away from times where there were strict gender roles, where women were expected to stay at home and men were expected to go out and provide for their family, or to go into the army to protect the ones they love. I think Its a good thing that this has happened, but at the same time it might mean that men in particular have less of a guideline for what they are supposed to be doing, or for feeling needed. I think its hitting women as well as there is the push to 'have it all', something that is actually very difficult to do. I don't think either sex has adjusted to the new reality yet. 

18 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I'm not saying that the media is overall more negative, just that male lives are specifically seen as more expendable. Think "women and children first". That's arguably infantilising to women, grouping them with children, but it's also clearly telling men their lives are more expendable. Or how the news often talks of evil groups "murdering women and children"- obviously they murder men as well, but that's only to be expected.

There is a biological argument here as well- a society can survive better with a small number of men than women. But I'm always cautious to mention those on here, people seem very offended at the idea that biology could affect anything socially.

Men have often been seen as expendable. Just from a sheer biological point of view, we don't need that many to reproduce and women and children are far more valuable. And so its ok to send men off to war to be killed, in fact it was encouraged, men would be seen as heroic. In fact the narrative we were (probably still are)  told about being a good man, was to sacrifice yourself for your family, for your country, for your king. It was an ideal that men were expected to live up to. I guess that trope is still with us in the stories we tell each other in movies etc. 
 

[mormont]

49 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I'm not saying that the media is overall more negative, just that male lives are specifically seen as more expendable. Think "women and children first".

A very old-fashioned sentiment that's falling out of favour. If this is your example, shouldn't we be talking about how society values men more than it used to? Same with the military: women are now more likely to be in combat roles, so by your argument, the relative expendability of men is surely falling? And yet when that topic is raised, those who complain about men being disadvantaged usually crop up on the other side of it. 

[Week]

6 hours ago, Eggegg said:

We are also moving away from times where there were strict gender roles, where women were expected to stay at home and men were expected to go out and provide for their family, or to go into the army to protect the ones they love. I think Its a good thing that this has happened, but at the same time it might mean that men in particular have less of a guideline for what they are supposed to be doing, or for feeling needed. I think its hitting women as well as there is the push to 'have it all', something that is actually very difficult to do. I don't think either sex has adjusted to the new reality yet. 

It is a good thing. Full stop. 

Congress is 80% male, Fortune 500 CEOs are 96% male, of the top 100 grossing movies in 2016 -- 96% were directed by men and where there was a sole protagonist it was male 71% of the time. Talking about men's issues has value -- however, talking about how society doesn't value men or isn't sufficiently catering to men is falling into MRA/Red Pill territory (i.e. alt-right fantasyland).

[Eggegg]

1 minute ago, Week said:

It is a good thing. Full stop. 

Congress is 80% male, Fortune 500 CEOs are 96% male, of the top 100 grossing movies in 2016 -- 96% were directed by men and where there was a sole protagonist it was male 71% of the time. Talking about men's issues has value -- however, talking about how society doesn't value men or isn't sufficiently catering to men is falling into MRA/Red Pill territory (i.e. alt-right fantasyland).

Which is exactly the sort of sniffy dismissive attitude that just fuels the alt-right and all the groups you hate.

You get groups like MRA's and Red Pill people because statements like that do not sit with how they see the world. Yes there are far too many men in the very highest echelons of power and that needs to change.. but does the average man feel powerful? Not really. The average guy doesn't run a country or a Fortune 500 company.. in fact he's probably struggling to pay his bills and dealing with crap at work. He doesn't see himself as more powerful than women because he's not really that much more powerful than the women he knows, he might even be getting bossed about by his wife or maybe has a female boss. But he's being told that he has all this power and he should feel guilty for all this privilege he has. 

So yes, those are definitely worthwhile causes. But that doesn't mean men have ZERO problems. And in fact your posts ( and very many more in this thread btw) just highlight how we view mens issues.. ie They don't have any so shut up and stop talking about them. 
 

[mankytoes]

6 hours ago, mormont said:

A very old-fashioned sentiment that's falling out of favour. If this is your example, shouldn't we be talking about how society values men more than it used to? Same with the military: women are now more likely to be in combat roles, so by your argument, the relative expendability of men is surely falling? And yet when that topic is raised, those who complain about men being disadvantaged usually crop up on the other side of it. 

I still often hear the news say things like "Innocent women and children were massacred in X today". So we're innocent men, but that isn't included until later, so sadly it isn't that old fashioned. 

So we should be grateful that we're still seen as the expendable gender, but less than before? I'm guessing you wouldn't put that argument to black people...

I'm not sure I fully understand your point there, but I absolutely support women in the military. I feel very frustrated with people who claim to support men's rights, but then insist we fill every front line combat role. These people aren't really interested in gender, they're just social conservatives, to me anyway.

 

[mankytoes]

40 minutes ago, Week said:

It is a good thing. Full stop. 

Congress is 80% male, Fortune 500 CEOs are 96% male, of the top 100 grossing movies in 2016 -- 96% were directed by men and where there was a sole protagonist it was male 71% of the time. Talking about men's issues has value -- however, talking about how society doesn't value men or isn't sufficiently catering to men is falling into MRA/Red Pill territory (i.e. alt-right fantasyland).

Those are all upper class issues. I'm not saying they don't matter at all, but I'm much more interested in things that effect the average person, or the least fortunate. I think feminists have hurt their movement a lot by focusing too much on 1%er issues, like judges and CEOs. These are important, but a long way from being the most important.

[Week]

34 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

So yes, those are definitely worthwhile causes. But that doesn't mean men have ZERO problems. And in fact your posts ( and very many more in this thread btw) just highlight how we view mens issues.. ie They don't have any so shut up and stop talking about them. 
 

Which I did not say. There are conversations worth having -- those aren't where this thread is or where it has been. I don't see that changing with this 'woe is men' whining. 

5 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Those are all upper class issues. I'm not saying they don't matter at all, but I'm much more interested in things that effect the average person, or the least fortunate. I think feminists have hurt their movement a lot by focusing too much on 1%er issues, like judges and CEOs. These are important, but a long way from being the most important.

These are the most visible people -- models for achievement that people take note of. My assumption is that they did not all start rich (though most probably do due to lack of economic/social mobility -- though a different topic). 

--More interest in what impacts the least fortunate ... like saying "women and children first" as a dagger to the self-worth of men everywhere. 

[akh]

I'm not sure about MRA and Red Pill groups starting because of the statements, although they probably do fuel the fire. I would wager there was a ton of bitter and lonely men throughout the 20th century. It's just the internet made it easy for them to group up and circlejerk in each others' misery.

Anyways, I hadn't though about the suicide rates being different due to men selecting more successful methods of carrying out the act. There's very few guns here, but I suppose hanging is more efficient than pills or slitting the wrists. Surely this only accounts for a slight portion of the difference, though.

[Eggegg]

5 minutes ago, Week said:

Which I did not say. There are conversations worth having -- those aren't where this thread is or where it has been. I don't see that changing with this 'woe is men' whining. 

Woah, hang on. We were having a conversation about male suicide and potential reasons for it, and now that is whining?! 
 

9 minutes ago, Week said:

These are the most visible people -- models for achievement that people take note of. My assumption is that they did not all start rich (though most probably do due to lack of economic/social mobility -- though a different topic). 

The lack of social and economic mobility in the US and Britain as well is a massive issue, and it appears to be getting worse. Which gets back to the point that banging on at the 99%'ers average joe about how the 1% of men are doing well is not entirely helpful when some men might want to discuss issues affecting them.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

4 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Those are all upper class issues. I'm not saying they don't matter at all, but I'm much more interested in things that effect the average person, or the least fortunate. I think feminists have hurt their movement a lot by focusing too much on 1%er issues, like judges and CEOs. These are important, but a long way from being the most important.

You should read bell hooks. One of the things her writings and scholarship have focused on was the lack of focus on race and class issues within the historic feminist conversation.  And I honestly don't think it really matters what a marginalized group focuses on - it will spark backlash.  

 

[mormont]

38 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Which is exactly the sort of sniffy dismissive attitude that just fuels the alt-right and all the groups you hate.

You get groups like MRA's and Red Pill people because statements like that do not sit with how they see the world.

But maybe the problem is that the way these people see the world is deluded and self-serving. And agreeing with someone who is deluded and self-serving is not going to change their mind: it will only reinforce their conviction. Opposing them may or may not change their mind, but agreeing with them will only cause further harm. 

If 'the average guy' feels powerless, he is perfectly capable of understanding that it is because of powerful men, not women or minorities. If he believes otherwise, he is not being rational. People who feel this way aren't interested in fighting the power: they're just looking for a scapegoat, someone weaker they can safely pick on to make themselves feel better. A foe they can defeat, not one they can't. 

You can't blame irrational beliefs on a rational reaction to them. 

13 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I still often hear the news say things like "Innocent women and children were massacred in X today". So we're innocent men, but that isn't included until later, so sadly it isn't that old fashioned. 

I honestly cannot remember the last time I heard any news broadcast make that distinction. There could of course be a perceptual filter at work here, possibly on both sides, and possibly cultural differences as well, but what is undeniable (it seems to me) is that this sort of remark is much less common than it was.

It's certainly reasonable to say 'we haven't come far enough' but my impression was that you thought the movement was in the other direction, or at best it was static. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Eggegg said:

Which is exactly the sort of sniffy dismissive attitude that just fuels the alt-right and all the groups you hate.

You get groups like MRA's and Red Pill people because statements like that do not sit with how they see the world. Yes there are far too many men in the very highest echelons of power and that needs to change.. but does the average man feel powerful? Not really. The average guy doesn't run a country or a Fortune 500 company.. in fact he's probably struggling to pay his bills and dealing with crap at work. He doesn't see himself as more powerful than women because he's not really that much more powerful than the women he knows, he might even be getting bossed about by his wife or maybe has a female boss. But he's being told that he has all this power and he should feel guilty for all this privilege he has. 

So yes, those are definitely worthwhile causes. But that doesn't mean men have ZERO problems. And in fact your posts ( and very many more in this thread btw) just highlight how we view mens issues.. ie They don't have any so shut up and stop talking about them. 
 

Talking about how the “average man” feels powerless has very little to do with feminism or empowering women.  The “average man” is powerless due to the existing hierarchical structure of society, not because women are gaining more power than they had in the past.

[Eggegg]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Talking about how the “average man” feels powerless has very little to do with feminism or empowering women.  The “average man” is powerless due to the existing hierarchical structure of society, not because women are gaining more power than they had in the past.

Thats exactly my point. If the average man feels powerless, then accusing him of being too powerful isn't going to really work if you want him to listen to you. 

[Week]

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

If 'the average guy' feels powerless, he is perfectly capable of understanding that it is because of powerful men, not women or minorities. If he believes otherwise, he is not being rational. People who feel this way aren't interested in fighting the power: they're just looking for a scapegoat, someone weaker they can safely pick on to make themselves feel better. A foe they can defeat, not one they can't. 

You can't blame irrational beliefs on a rational reaction to them. 

Agree. This feels like the 'average guy' feeling powerless leads to a discussion of how poorly men are represented and how bad things have gotten for men (from their perspective) when it is really a class/economic issue. The 'average' anyone is likely feeling rather powerless which has a profoundly negative impact on outcomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study.

 

Accusing him of being too powerful? Ok, thanks but I'm done -- by all means, continue with the whining and scapegoating of others. The problem of average men cannot possibly be felt by anyone else -- so it must be their fault because of feminism, affirmative action, identity politics (PAY ATTENTION TO MEN AND NOT OTHER IDENTITIES), yeah ok  bruh.

[Eggegg]

1 minute ago, Week said:

Agree. This feels like the 'average guy' feeling powerless leads to a discussion of how poorly men are represented and how bad things have gotten for men (from their perspective) when it is really a class/economic issue. The 'average' anyone is likely feeling rather powerless which has a profoundly negative impact on outcomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study.

Then why come into a discussion about men's issues and bring up the male/female ratio of fortune 500 CEOs? 

[Week]

2 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Then why come into a discussion about men's issues and bring up the male/female ratio of fortune 500 CEOs? 

Relevant to the context of the discussion.

You don't like it -- so I'll let you have your precious safe-space. My sincere apologies to my fellow down-trodden man. I hope you learn to feel empowered some day.