Unhelpful 'gendering' of social issues

iptba

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Meh, the "man up" thing comes from a very macho place. You can blame women if you want, but it's far, far more likely to come from men.
That's not to say that there aren't obstacles men face due to being men that are caused by women, but the "Man up" one... really it, like the "nnnnnnice" nonsense, is something I'd place mostly on the shoulders of blokeyness.

This post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80653009&postcount=43 by The Corinthian expresses some of my thoughts regarding the issue

Terms such as "be a man" or "man up" are designed to shame the (male) target into conforming to certain, often against their own interests, stereotypes about men's role in society.

It's been around for a long time in one shape of other; the Romans have very defined views of what it meant to be a man and chivalry was based entirely on chauvinistic codes of conduct that if you failed to live up to made you 'dishonourable'. More recently also, it was used to great effect by women giving civilian men white flowers as a sign of their cowardice during World War I, if they didn't sign up, or the accusations of cowardice that men who survived the Titanic disaster had to face for the rest of their lives - simply for surviving.

Today it is often used as a general term invoking courage, often in levity; especially where it comes to drinking or sport.

However, if you search how it's used even here and filter out the more light hearted or throwaway examples, instead focusing on when it is used as a means to 'shame' a man into certain behaviour, you'll tend to find a recurring pattern:
Controlling emotion, especially crying.
Providing for one's wife and/or children.
To use violence in defending one's self, or one's girlfriend/wife.
As an attack against fathers who don't want to be fathers.
To stand up against bullying (workplace, marriage, etc) - become more assertive, aggressive or even physical.
Paying on dates.

If you look at these, you'll tend to find that they tend to be calls often (but not always) to behave in a self destructive manner; to act against your own interests because it is expected for a man to do so - if he is a real man.

This philosophy is based upon the fact that men in a patriarchal society had to pay for their privileged position. But the World has changed because largely women began to question their position and role, yet men did not.

Wibbs

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Meh, the "man up" thing comes from a very macho place. You can blame women if you want, but it's far, far more likely to come from men.
That's not to say that there aren't obstacles men face due to being men that are caused by women, but the "Man up" one... really it, like the "nnnnnnice" nonsense, is something I'd place mostly on the shoulders of blokeyness.

I'd agree FF. Just like I've noticed that so called "slut shaming" is more likely to come from other women, then the "man up" stuff is much more likely to come from other men. Both need to clean their own house before accusing others of the labels.

TBH I have fallen for/buy into the man up thing, or at least I've certainly thought it about some men in the past and have bitten my lip on the subject more than once. Though rather than think "man up" I'd be thinking "FFS get a grip man". And yes I will admit I'd give less emotional leeway to a man compared to a woman and would corral myself on that score the most. Colour me sexist I suppose, but I do expect more emotionals from women(though my threshold is low there too).

I'm not speaking of me not giving emotional support for real life emotional insults. If you are a friend of mine you can take that support to the bank. I will be there for you. I speak of "white whines". Whines that unless a person is actually afflicted with an illness like depression are just that, whines. We all can suffer from them and fair enough, but when it's a constant I do think get a bloody grip and stop being so self obsessed, not when half the worlds population will go to bed hungry tonight. If they even have a bed.

iptba

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Looks interesting.
However, it's not just other males who say things like "man up".

Meh, the "man up" thing comes from a very macho place. You can blame women if you want, but it's far, far more likely to come from men.

Just to point out the context, in case anyone missed it. It is only male voices in the clip that say "man up".

And it is only male voices that say "don't cry"/"stop with the tears"/"no one likes a tattle-tale"/all the other stuff at the start of the clip.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd agree FF. Just like I've noticed that so called "slut shaming" is more likely to come from other women, then the "man up" stuff is much more likely to come from other men. Both need to clean their own house before accusing others of the labels.

TBH I have fallen for/buy into the man up thing, or at least I've certainly thought it about some men in the past and have bitten my lip on the subject more than once. Though rather than think "man up" I'd be thinking "FFS get a grip man". And yes I will admit I'd give less emotional leeway to a man compared to a woman and would corral myself on that score the most. Colour me sexist I suppose, but I do expect more emotionals from women(though my threshold is low there too).

I'm not speaking of me not giving emotional support for real life emotional insults. If you are a friend of mine you can take that support to the bank. I will be there for you. I speak of "white whines". Whines that unless a person is actually afflicted with an illness like depression are just that, whines. We all can suffer from them and fair enough, but when it's a constant I do think get a bloody grip and stop being so self obsessed, not when half the worlds population will go to bed hungry tonight. If they even have a bed.

That's because man up is largely about proving you are in fact NOT a woman, but you can hardly expect a woman to prove she is in fact NOT a woman.

Because you have such different expectations of men and women, you need to think about whether you are being unfair to the women or the men, in other words, are you too demanding of composure, self control and repression from your male peers or should you be more demanding of that from your female peers.

I tend to take each person on their own terms, they either annoy me or they don't... too many variables at play to decide.

GalwayGuy2

Meh, the "man up" thing comes from a very macho place. You can blame women if you want, but it's far, far more likely to come from men.
That's not to say that there aren't obstacles men face due to being men that are caused by women, but the "Man up" one... really it, like the "nnnnnnice" nonsense, is something I'd place mostly on the shoulders of blokeyness.

Yes, the phrase 'man up' does mostly come from men. It's actually bizarre they've even focused on that phrase. Couldn't they have just focused on forced masculinity in general?

As well as that, there are other kinds of shaming that doesn't involve 'manning up'. There are plenty of shaming tactics that tell men not to have as much masculine traits. Eg: control sexuality or you will lose control and attack someone. Or homosexuality is unrestrained male sexuality and you will lose control and attack someone.

I tend to take each person on their own terms, they either annoy me or they don't... too many variables at play to decide.

A helpful tactic is to think of what a person is saying as 'Theories' rather than opinions.

I have rather massive issues with feminism as theory, and I think that mental distanction has stopped me from having issues with a feminist as a 'person'.

iptba

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Yes, the phrase 'man up' does mostly come from men. It's actually bizarre they've even focused on that phrase. Couldn't they have just focused on forced masculinity in general?

As well as that, there are other kinds of shaming that doesn't involve 'manning up'. There are plenty of shaming tactics that tell men not to have as much masculine traits. Eg: control sexuality or you will lose control and attack someone. Or homosexuality is unrestrained male sexuality and you will lose control and attack someone.

For what it's worth, here's a link with a catalogue of anti-male shaming tactics:
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

Digging a bit deeper into the advisors for the documentary http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jensiebelnewsom/the-mask-you-live-in , it is possibly not that surprising that they place all the blame on problems for males on other males.

Wibbs

clairefontaine wrote: »

Because you have such different expectations of men and women, you need to think about whether you are being unfair to the women or the men, in other words, are you too demanding of composure, self control and repression from your male peers or should you be more demanding of that from your female peers.

Hmmm good point. TBH my gap for emotionals for either gender is pretty close. But yes again TBH I tend to give women more leeway. Maybe because of the more crazy hormonal crap women can often have to put up with? I've had some exes and mates who were incredibly together people, but once a month that could be really hard for them, even though they would really try to rise above all that crap. No way was it them being self indulgent or any of that, it was clearly a chemical thing that men wouldn't have. Still I expect some level of self control and non self centered thinking in both men and women.

I tend to take each person on their own terms, they either annoy me or they don't... too many variables at play to decide.

Better way to look at it CF and I generally would aim for that. I suppose my issue where it arises if at all is with "white whiners" in general, outside of gender.

That's because man up is largely about proving you are in fact NOT a woman, but you can hardly expect a woman to prove she is in fact NOT a woman.

For me it's not. For me it's proving you're not a wuss, you're not self absorbed, you may have times of crap, but you choose to rise above them. Again outside of gender.

K-9

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Meh, the "man up" thing comes from a very macho place. You can blame women if you want, but it's far, far more likely to come from men.
That's not to say that there aren't obstacles men face due to being men that are caused by women, but the "Man up" one... really it, like the "nnnnnnice" nonsense, is something I'd place mostly on the shoulders of blokeyness.

I don't know about that one, I really don't, was watching something on TV recently, don't know what it was, could even have been listening to something on the radio, some inane conservation anyway, and a woman said she'd recently got married and he was "a mans man", whatever that means.

Wibbs pointed out the slut shaming example, and it's a good one, but that type of thing has been going on so long, indeed still goes on with younger generations that should know better, that I'd say that both it and slut shaming has got nothing to do with either sex. It's a slur aimed at the most easily available insult to throw at somebody of your own sex.

clairefontaine wrote:

I tend to take each person on their own terms, they either annoy me or they don't... too many variables at play to decide.

I wouldn't be quite as definitive as you but yep, that's very much my philosophy on people. Some annoy me a little, others moreso, very few are as perfect as me!

Seriously, there aren't too many people I know that don't have some redeeming qualities that bye and large make up for any downsides.

The slut shaming and man up stuff are just easy slurs thrown at each gender, both easy targets to get at weaknesses. Both are like racism in a way, see somebody with a different colour, unthinkingly call them something based on that. What is as easily identifiable as a colour? well gender.

Just as it's rather dumb to base opinions on people based on colour, it isn't the brightest to stereotype actions, beliefs etc. on gender.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

Hmmm good point. TBH my gap for emotionals for either gender is pretty close. But yes again TBH I tend to give women more leeway. Maybe because of the more crazy hormonal crap women can often have to put up with? I've had some exes and mates who were incredibly together people, but once a month that could be really hard for them, even though they would really try to rise above all that crap. No way was it them being self indulgent or any of that, it was clearly a chemical thing that men wouldn't have. Still I expect some level of self control and non self centered thinking in both men and women.

Lol. Have you considered that what they are presenting is the best they can do in terms of repression and being in control and that if they took the lid off plates would fly? I read an article once saying the economy was a result of wall street acting like men who had their periods. Testosterone surges... etc So maybe they are actually exhibiting self control? I don't know what you have seen or experienced so I wont judge, maybe you have seen more than I have or different things... but I also have come across alot of theories about menstrual mood behavior. One being that women are not used to the testosterone surges so don't really know how to handle it. That in fact, men are like that ALL the time so are better skilled at managing aggression. I guess it's impossible to say really. Another is that, all the things and feelings they are able to sit on and put a lid on the rest of the month, come out to play, and that what happens is that their wants and preferences become very apparant and immedate to them.

Wibbs wrote: »

Better way to look at it CF and I generally would aim for that. I suppose my issue where it arises if at all is with "white whiners" in general, outside of gender.

What is a white whiner?

Wibbs wrote: »

For me it's not. For me it's proving you're not a wuss, you're not self absorbed, you may have times of crap, but you choose to rise above them. Again outside of gender.

Well ok but the other side of that, the price if you will, is that men end up exploding in much darker more extreme ways, ala Adam Lanza, etc, suicides, murder suicides, etc, rather than ...see first paragraph of this post.

I'm not really either or about it, it's all negotiable and everyone is so different that I don't really have a universal expectation about it.

pwurple

A white whiner is someone with an unending series of ridiculous first world problems.

"There is too much foam in my latte".
"I can't find a parking space big enough for my range rover."

http://www.whitewhine.com

Pawwed Rig

Interesting points raised below.

I suppose my opinion is where one holds someone to a different standard because of what sex, race, etc they are then one is displaying traits of being sexist, racist, etc.
To have a greater tolerance for women's emotions than men's ignores the diversity of the human being.

I also do not think the man up is driven solely by males. I couldn't count how many times I have been told by female teachers and parents during my formative years that 'big boys don't cry' and sent on my way. The same people will pick up a girl and comfort her until the crying stops.

Wibbs

clairefontaine wrote: »

Lol. Have you considered that what they are presenting is the best they can do in terms of repression and being in control and that if they took the lid off plates would fly?

I rate people by how they stay in control. Cool heads. I don't rate people who lose control on a regular basis. Hotheads.

Well ok but the other side of that, the price if you will, is that men end up exploding in much darker more extreme ways, ala Adam Lanza, etc, suicides, murder suicides, etc, rather than ...see first paragraph of this post.

In fairly rare cases though. The vast majority of men don't explode. Maybe in the area of suicide, but even then that's rare enough too when looking at the overall picture.

I'm not really either or about it, it's all negotiable and everyone is so different that I don't really have a universal expectation about it.

Probably the best way to look at it.

Wibbs

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

To have a greater tolerance for women's emotions than men's ignores the diversity of the human being.

Yes and no, any number of studies shows women on average are more emotional than men and are more likely to express this and it's not so culturally based either. Women during their fertile years have much wider hormonal swings and these swings can effect emotion, so for me giving some leeway as an average is not that illogical. Would I be considered sexist if I gave up my seat on the bus to a heavily pregnant woman? That's a more extreme example of a biological gender bias that's blindly accepted. Would I be considered sexist if I intervened if I saw a man beating a woman up? I doubt it, but it is another acceptable example of a gender bias in behaviour. Even in application of law we see this bias. Women often, if not usually get more lenient sentences for the same crimes and it's more likely to find hormonal differences being cited as accentuating circumstances.

And I'd bet the farm that if you listened in to male - female conversations and analysed them down to the subtle messages I'd be more the usual than unusual. I've known enough men who claim to treat the genders the same, but when observed it was pretty clear they had different conversations with and expectations of women compared with convos with men. Oh it's subtle most of the time, but it's there and there a fair bit. Indeed I would say it's so common it's not even noticed the majority of the time. Hell I've even seen it on Boards on a personal level. Back in the day when a fair few people reckoned I was a woman, I got different responses and PM's(and I don't mean flirty stuff) in both subtle and not so subtle ways. Women and men can inhabit very different worlds in society.

Pawwed Rig

Wibbs wrote: »

Women often, if not usually get more lenient sentences for the same crimes and it's more likely to find hormonal differences being cited as accentuating circumstances.

If we are to allow this argument of diminished responsibility because of hormones then why only apply this to women? Obviously those with mental issues can claim deminished responsibilty but can we apply it to a guy who 'loses it' due to anger issues? Or to someone who had a 'hard upbringing'?Is anyone actually fully to blame for thier actions?

Yes and no, any number of studies shows women on average are more emotional than men and are more likely to express this and it's not so culturally based either.

On average Yes. Like men are on average more likely to be involved in a car accident but it has been decided that it is sexist to have different rates for men and women. And women are more likely to claim on health insurance but it is sexist to charge different premiums. Just because something is true on average does not mean we should treat people differently because of it. I will point to the 'reds under the bed' dialogue in relation to the suspicion that any man could be a paedophile. I don't see how that is not ok but giving women allowances for hormones is.

Would I be considered sexist if I gave up my seat on the bus to a heavily pregnant woman?

No but think you would be likely to give up your seat to anyone who seemed to be in need of it regardless of sex. I gave up a seat recently to a guy who was clearly having breathing problems for example.

I've known enough men who claim to treat the genders the same, but when observed it was pretty clear they had different conversations with and expectations of women compared with convos with men. Oh it's subtle most of the time, but it's there and there a fair bit.

Agree completely and I am not even saying that I do not do the same thing but I am aware that it is happening and consciously try to avoid it.

I have also become alot more aware of depression in the last few years and can see subtle signs of it in the behaviour of alot of people (both sexes)who I may previously have dismissed as an attention seeker or a whinger.

iptba

Wibbs wrote: »

And I'd bet the farm that if you listened in to male - female conversations and analysed them down to the subtle messages I'd be more the usual than unusual. I've known enough men who claim to treat the genders the same, but when observed it was pretty clear they had different conversations with and expectations of women compared with convos with men. Oh it's subtle most of the time, but it's there and there a fair bit. Indeed I would say it's so common it's not even noticed the majority of the time. Hell I've even seen it on Boards on a personal level. Back in the day when a fair few people reckoned I was a woman, I got different responses and PM's(and I don't mean flirty stuff) in both subtle and not so subtle ways. Women and men can inhabit very different worlds in society.

One can talk to men and women differently on average, which I do think happens a lot, but still hold them both to the same standards for culpability. As was mentioned briefly, men get more testosterone than women which could be said to make them more "hormonal" in some situations. If one looks at various animals, a lot of males will fight for territory, status in a group, access to a female, etc so one could say it is more natural for men to fight.

Mike747

pwurple wrote: »

A white whiner is someone with an unending series of ridiculous first world problems.

"There is too much foam in my latte".
"I can't find a parking space big enough for my range rover."

http://www.whitewhine.com

How come the people shown are always white? Are there no petty upper class coloured people in the world?

JRant

iptba wrote: »

One can talk to men and women differently on average, which I do think happens a lot, but still hold them both to the same standards for culpability. As was mentioned briefly, men get more testosterone than women which could be said to make them more "hormonal" in some situations. If one looks at various animals, a lot of males will fight for territory, status in a group, access to a female, etc so one could say it is more natural for men to fight.

It's a very interesting preception all the same. Men's hormonal issues are completely ignored, especially in schools. With little to no thought being given to the issue or how to help young men deal with the massive influx of testosterone.

Wrt to the animal world there are plenty of examples of the female of the species showing little to no loyalty to their male partners past the 'what have you done for me lately' attitude. You won't see a lioness sticking up for the pride leader, more they'll shack up with whoever wins the fight. I'd like to think we're moving away from that sort of mentality though

Standman

Mike747 wrote: »

How come the people shown are always white? Are there no petty upper class coloured people in the world?

But that doesn't fit with the white guilt motivated self-flagellation theme!

clairefontaine

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Interesting points raised below.

I suppose my opinion is where one holds someone to a different standard because of what sex, race, etc they are then one is displaying traits of being sexist, racist, etc.
To have a greater tolerance for women's emotions than men's ignores the diversity of the human being.

I also do not think the man up is driven solely by males. I couldn't count how many times I have been told by female teachers and parents during my formative years that 'big boys don't cry' and sent on my way. The same people will pick up a girl and comfort her until the crying stops.

You could look at it like holding different standards, but you could also look at it as respecting difference.

The intolerance for boys expressing hurt, starts very very young, from moms, dads, teachers, as early as infancy. And very subtle.

I actually consider it dangerous.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes and no, any number of studies shows women on average are more emotional than men and are more likely to express this and it's not so culturally based either. Women during their fertile years have much wider hormonal swings and these swings can effect emotion, so for me giving some leeway as an average is not that illogical. Would I be considered sexist if I gave up my seat on the bus to a heavily pregnant woman? That's a more extreme example of a biological gender bias that's blindly accepted. Would I be considered sexist if I intervened if I saw a man beating a woman up? I doubt it, but it is another acceptable example of a gender bias in behaviour. Even in application of law we see this bias. Women often, if not usually get more lenient sentences for the same crimes and it's more likely to find hormonal differences being cited as accentuating circumstances.

And I'd bet the farm that if you listened in to male - female conversations and analysed them down to the subtle messages I'd be more the usual than unusual. I've known enough men who claim to treat the genders the same, but when observed it was pretty clear they had different conversations with and expectations of women compared with convos with men. Oh it's subtle most of the time, but it's there and there a fair bit. Indeed I would say it's so common it's not even noticed the majority of the time. Hell I've even seen it on Boards on a personal level. Back in the day when a fair few people reckoned I was a woman, I got different responses and PM's(and I don't mean flirty stuff) in both subtle and not so subtle ways. Women and men can inhabit very different worlds in society.

Indeed, it's hard to ignore studies, men are just better at reading maps, driving diggers, that type of stuff, women are more emotional, just tend to be more socially intelligent.

clairefontaine wrote: »

You could look at it like holding different standards, but you could also look at it as respecting difference.

The intolerance for boys expressing hurt, starts very very young, from moms, dads, teachers, as early as infancy. And very subtle.

I actually consider it dangerous.

It definitely is, there's a reason men have higher suicide rates and I think the above is a big factor. Same as with slut shaming. Much as all I do believe treating people as individuals is very important, getting examples from same gender parents is extremely influential with slut shaming and sucides.

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, it's hard to ignore studies,

Actually it is. While of course individuals differ, there are clear gender differences in certain areas. These are both cultural and biological in nature. The notion that sprang out of 1960's thinking that gender is a social construct and we're all blank slates has proven to be a nonsense and that it's far more complex than that. Culture most certainly has an impact, but it's on preexisting gender differences. The suicide rates you go on to reference show this pretty clearly. BTW just in case of any confusion, this and gender has no bearing on individual intelligence, or career ability etc.

It definitely is, there's a reason men have higher suicide rates and I think the above is a big factor.

Or it's more complex than that. Women have higher rates of attempted suicide than men, particularly when young/late adolescent(this tapers off with age). Men have higher completed suicide rates and don't present as much of an age factor(EG in later life divorce and separation are big factors for men. Nearly 4 times higher rate among divorced men. Women's rates don't change from the average).

It's also cultural of course. In the second and third worlds the gender gap is much less(Female rates are higher, men's rates are lower and it is overall lower). It seems living in the west is a negative factor for male suicide(and a protective factor for female), even though more clearly set "boys don't cry" type gender roles would be higher in second and third world cultures and living in the west would have more discussion and clinical support available around the subject. Even taking the western cultures in isolation, in the past gender roles were more delineated and expressing hurt was even more frowned upon yet depression and suicide rates were lower*. I'm not nearly so sure that the "boys don't cry" stuff is the reason, merely one symptom or co-factor of some other cultural difference.

Indeed one could flip this on it's head and suggest that not letting "boys be boys" and impinging a more female viewpoint is a factor. Take some more extreme examples from the US. On the one hand boys are told not to express hurt and at the same time more "boyish" behaviour is discouraged, often medicalised. There are far more American young boys on medication for "psychological conditions" than young girls.







*yes reporting was lower in the past, but even taking that into account it seems the suicide rates(along with depressive type mental illness) is on the rise in the west and has been for a generation.

jgr12

Wibbs wrote: »

It's also cultural of course. In the second and third worlds the gender gap is much less(Female rates are higher, men's rates are lower and it is overall lower). It seems living in the west is a negative factor for male suicide(and a protective factor for female), even though more clearly set "boys don't cry" type gender roles would be higher in second and third world cultures and living in the west would have more discussion and clinical support available around the subject. Even taking the western cultures in isolation, in the past gender roles were more delineated and expressing hurt was even more frowned upon yet depression and suicide rates were lower*. I'm not nearly so sure that the "boys don't cry" stuff is the reason, merely one symptom or co-factor of some other cultural difference.

I would presume that most of that is to do with the traditional roles that males inhabit in 2nd and 3rd world cultures, they know their responsibilities and rights and what they are supposed to be as 'a man' and in that way, don't really have to worry about what it is to be 'a man', they just follow a path.

I think the difference in the 1st world is that we are all told that we can be whatever we want, however, we seem to still be in a place where if anyone, male or female, chooses a role or job etc, that is not typical of their gender they will still be judged on it, sometimes quite harshly and especially in this country we are still not so far removed from the traditional gender roles of our parents and grandparents and it would seem to me that there is a certain hangover from the past that people are maybe unable to shake.

Amongst my friends (mid to late twenties) I still see quite a lot of them falling into traditional roles and basically taking it on as a duty, looking at their parents and just continuing on, working jobs they hate and very probably in one case, slowly killing himself out of this duty. The strain that those types of jobs puts on people can all too easily affect a relationship and then if it all falls apart you've got a man who is trying to inhabit a traditional role that doesn't exist for him anymore.

It would seem that the best thing for everyone to do is to actually try and do what makes them happy, within feasibilty, and to pick their own path without regard for what other people think. Easier said than done though.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

Or it's more complex than that. Women have higher rates of attempted suicide than men, particularly when young/late adolescent(this tapers off with age). Men have higher completed suicide rates and don't present as much of an age factor(EG in later life divorce and separation are big factors for men. Nearly 4 times higher rate among divorced men. Women's rates don't change from the average). .

Women have higher rates of attempted but failed suicides because they choose methods with lower rates of success. Some say they want to be rescued, not killed.

There are also cultural things at play. The US has the lowest rates of suicide in the world and within the US, New York has the lowest rate (they say New Yorkers aren't quitters!)

But.... if you look at gun violence, gang violence and some of the more extreme examples of mass shootings, it sheds a different light on where the anger goes? Possibly. Maybe it has to do with being more extroverted a culture so the anger goes outwards instead of inwards?

Then there is chronic suicides, drinking, drugging.... the slow boil of oneself. Probably more men there too.

Wibbs wrote: »

It's also cultural of course. In the second and third worlds the gender gap is much less(Female rates are higher, men's rates are lower and it is overall lower). It seems living in the west is a negative factor for male suicide(and a protective factor for female), even though more clearly set "boys don't cry" type gender roles would be higher in second and third world cultures and living in the west would have more discussion and clinical support available around the subject. Even taking the western cultures in isolation, in the past gender roles were more delineated and expressing hurt was even more frowned upon yet depression and suicide rates were lower*. I'm not nearly so sure that the "boys don't cry" stuff is the reason, merely one symptom or co-factor of some other cultural difference.

Indeed one could flip this on it's head and suggest that not letting "boys be boys" and impinging a more female viewpoint is a factor. Take some more extreme examples from the US. On the one hand boys are told not to express hurt and at the same time more "boyish" behaviour is discouraged, often medicalised. There are far more American young boys on medication for "psychological conditions" than young girls.

Boys in the US are in a serious double bind. It's a minefield. On the other more sinister hand, they are also saying that girls are going undiagnosed.... lol.... more kids to put on meds.

LostinBlanch

Wibbs wrote: »

Back in the day when a fair few people reckoned I was a woman, I got different responses and PM's(and I don't mean flirty stuff) in both subtle and not so subtle ways. Women and men can inhabit very different worlds in society.

Wait, you're male? :eek:

GalwayGuy2

Possibly. Maybe it has to do with being more extroverted a culture so the anger goes outwards instead of inwards?

Hmmm, I feel awful for saying this, but I wonder is there some anger directed a the local friends and family?

Wibbs

clairefontaine wrote: »

The US has the lowest rates of suicide in the world

Actually it doesn't CF(number 33 out of 110). Ireland has a lower rate for a start and there are many many countries that have lower rates.

tsiehta

Wibbs wrote: »

The notion that sprang out of 1960's thinking that gender is a social construct and we're all blank slates has proven to be a nonsense and that it's far more complex than that.

I don't believe anything like this has been proven. It's impossible to control for socialization.

I mean, of course there are biological differences between the sexes. How much these differences impact upon behaviours and tendencies into adulthood, exclusive of socialization, is not well understood though. I think it's dangerous to make any assumptions here.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually it doesn't CF(number 33 out of 110). Ireland has a lower rate for a start and there are many many countries that have lower rates.

There's a debate over how Ireland classifies and reports suicide statistics.

It's a bit like Ireland claiming a very low infant mortality rate, we didn't use the same standards of reporting so it was always going to look that way. Not much to brag about when you delve into it.

Wibbs

tsiehta wrote: »

I don't believe anything like this has been proven. It's impossible to control for socialization.

It's certainly extremely difficult, however the notion that gender is an almost entirely social construct has been shown to be largely incorrect. It's far more complex than that and there is a pretty strong biological component.

I mean, of course there are biological differences between the sexes. How much these differences impact upon behaviours and tendencies into adulthood, exclusive of socialization, is not well understood though. I think it's dangerous to make any assumptions here.

These differences can be seen in the brain. Broadly speaking there are "female" and "male" brains with a continuum between those two points. One can even see this in conditions affecting the brain, where for example many more boys are on the autistic scale than girls.
A few links for perusal
http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/6/552.full
http://www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langimp/genderbrain.pdf
This is an interesting one on a few levels(basically boys and girls are very different as children, but these differences diminish as they mature).
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sax-sex/201012/unexpected-sex-differences-in-brain-development
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/7/2241.full.pdf *PDF document*

K-9 wrote: »

There's a debate over how Ireland classifies and reports suicide statistics.

Certainly, but one could say that about most nations. It's seriously underreported across the board.

It's a bit like Ireland claiming a very low infant mortality rate, we didn't use the same standards of reporting so it was always going to look that way. Not much to brag about when you delve into it.

Even when you delve into it, we still have a very low infant mortality rate compared to other western nations and far lower than in the second and third world. Even if you doubled our rate, we'd be still be eight times better on the infant mortality score than say India. We're at nearly half the US rate for example and a couple of points above our neighbours in the UK. While there are clearly many areas where we can always improve, it makes little sense to me to fall into unnecessary self flagellation over it(all too common a response for us as a culture).

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

Certainly, but one could say that about most nations. It's seriously underreported across the board.

That might be the case all right, I just know people have raised misreporting of suicides here as an issue.

Even when you delve into it, we still have a very low infant mortality rate compared to other western nations and far lower than in the second and third world. Even if you doubled our rate, we'd be still be eight times better on the infant mortality score than say India. We're at nearly half the US rate for example and a couple of points above our neighbours in the UK. While there are clearly many areas where we can always improve, it makes little sense to me to fall into unnecessary self flagellation over it(all too common a response for us as a culture).

Definitely not a self flagellation thing, though there equally is a smugness about "best maternity system in the world", that type of stuff. The way infant mortality rates are recorded was changed recently, might well be coming in this year, and that will probably see our rate rise as we report them in a similar way to many other countries.

We'll still have a good rate, wouldn't swap it for India as the example you raised! But it isn't quite as brilliant as some make out, sometimes I get the feeling certain people with agendas can trumpet the stats, it's something I'd be aware of, but I still rate our maternity services.