Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
koti

Men/Women suicide and life span.

Recommended Posts

Something scary and depressing and its certainly not putting me into the frame of mind I want to be in.

Apparently, Poland is a country in which the ratio of men suicide to women suicide is highest in the world and the difference in men/women life span is largest from the 35 countries studied. 

If anyone knows how to debunk this or at least has some tips on how to stop thinking about it I’d be much obliged. 

Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)32381-9/fulltext

I would also like to disclose my „hidden agenda” beforehand so I will not be accused of anything fishy if/when this topic evolves. As the subject I’m bringing here (male suicide) was the most relevant part for me of the documentary „The Red Pill”, I would like to ask everyone, especially @CharonY who has been willing to discuss this with me before to bring insight.

The documentary:

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt3686998/

Edited by koti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, koti said:

Something scary and depressing and its certainly not putting me into the frame of mind I want to be in.

Apparently, Poland is a country in which the ratio of men suicide to women suicide is highest in the world and the difference in men/women life span is largest from the 35 countries studied. 

If anyone knows how to debunk this or at least has some tips on how to stop thinking about it I’d be much obliged. 

Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)32381-9/fulltext

 

 

That's about a whole population view and says nothing about you personally. How long you live depends on your lifestyle, diet and genetics. 

Do you feel better now? :)

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

That's about a whole population view and says nothing about you personally. How long you live depends on your lifestyle, diet and genetics. 

Do you feel better now? :)

I appologize Stringy, I just edited my original post and you had no chance to relate. But yeah, I guess I do a little :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, koti said:

Something scary and depressing and its certainly not putting me into the frame of mind I want to be in.

Apparently, Poland is a country in which the ratio of men suicide to women suicide is highest in the world and the difference in men/women life span is largest from the 35 countries studied. 

If anyone knows how to debunk this or at least has some tips on how to stop thinking about it I’d be much obliged. 

Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)32381-9/fulltext

I would also like to disclose my „hidden agenda” beforehand so I will not be accused of anything fishy if/when this topic evolves. As the subject I’m bringing here (male suicide) was the most relevant part for me of the documentary „The Red Pill”, I would like to ask everyone, especially @CharonY who has been willing to discuss this with me before to bring insight.

The documentary:

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt3686998/

Ok this is a bit topic with a lot of literature and I am going to preface that due to the complexity there is no universal answer and certainly not one applicable to all societies. I will also start by stating that the issue with the movie is not bringing up the issue (it is the only redeemable element of it) but promoting or at least implying reasons that are often bad science or at least oversimplifying the issue or discuss it in a way that is entirely based on a lack of an understanding of modern research on feminism and gender issues. And by mostly focusing on controversial figures in the narrative, the filmmaker is doing the difficult question a disservice. It is a bit like trying to reconcile modern politics mostly by interviewing youtube personalities.

Now that that is out of the way I have to further add that I have not read a lot studies on Poland specifically, so it is not clear what other reports, which were mostly conducted in North America (and quite a few in South Korea) apply.

The topic is, as I mentioned, quite large and difficult and a single post will not suffice to even put a dent into existing literature. One thing that is striking and actually has been found in several countries over the world is the so-called gender paradox: women attempts suicide more often, but men complete (i.e. die from) suicide more frequently. For now I will try to address some of the lit that I recall on that specific matter.

1) means of suicide. A part of the puzzle are suicide methods. Men are more likely to use methods that are violent and have a higher risk of death (esp. firearms). Women tend to go for pills (which are very ineffective) and exsanguination. But this can only be seen as a part of the issue. And in some areas it could be consider a minor element.

2) Men are far less likely to search for help when they start having suicidal thoughts. This is a part that the movie almost starts to get right and the veers into a weird direction. There are several explanation. However, one concept that has been explored more in recent years involve the issue of toxic masculinity under the broader concept of patriarchy. Simply (and I am probably doing social scientists a disfavour here, so my apologies for butchering the concept), in strongly patriarchic societies, men are expected to conform to certain norms of masculinity. And one of the aspects that can be considered to be toxic for men is the fact that they are supposed to be strong and self-reliant. I.e. asking for help is seen as a weakness and emasculating. I think quite a few men can somewhat relate to that. I still observe in myself that I'd rather spend too much time researching how a particular tool or piece for some work is called rather than just ask someone who knows his stuff because I feel like an idiot. It is silly, but often one can help oneself as one has been educated as such as a child. Not getting help during depression or otherwise being in situations where suicidal thoughts arise are an extreme version of it. What the movie gets wrong is that it presents that as opposing view on women's right. In fact both,  power imbalance of women  and disadvantaging men when they need help, are outcrops  and consequences of a patriarchic  system.

3) Somewhat connected, there are often different social structures that help in prevention, and in many groups they are stronger with females. Men are more likely to have fewer familal connections, though it depends a lot on the individual and cultural background.

4) Another connected element is that in a patriarchic society men are expected to be the provider in a family. Socioeconomic downturns therefore place a higher burden (societal and mental) on men than women.

5) Even if patriarchies are one important aspect, other cultural norms, connected or not also seem to have an influence. In Hispanic communities within the USA female suicide is higher than male suicide, for example

6) Age, ethnicity and many more factors: as can be seen, if one starts at data in more detail more patterns emerge that make overarching narratives difficult. In some communities suicide rate is highest for middle-aged men. In others, younger folks have a higher rate. In some areas especially younger women complete suicide more frequently than their age peers. Each of those factors have been subjected to studies and a variety of conclusions have been drawn. As intersectionality is becoming more of a thing more finer grained research is being conducted and published. 

There is much more out there to talk about, but a) the post is already long and I really, really do not want to spellcheck so just a final point for now:

i will go back to the movie after all now here:

The part that the movie gets right in that respect is that often there is more focus on the women's side in the feminist movement. There are reasons for that, mostly because those can be addressed via legal challenges (e.g. discrimination lawsuits). However, forcing society to think conceptually different of male and female roles in society rather than e.g. workplace of places of power (which again is part of the broader feminist movement), is far more a niche discussion. The ultimate sin of the movie  is that instead of interviewing folks in the feminist movement that have their roots in the Men's Liberation movement, they went to the anti-feminists to get the opposing view. That latter group is doing little but in fact increase the gender tension and if anything promote just a different flavour of toxic masculinity. There are plenty of groups within the broader feminist movement (and I think the issue is really the historic naming of the movement that make people thing it is only about women) that fall under the concept of the Men's liberation movement that would have been far more educational to talk to (or perhaps sociologist studying that field).

 

Edit:

with respect to Poland and high suicide rates, there seems to be a similar trend as in Russia: levels of addiction, including alcohol, are increasing and those seem to coincide also with higher suicide rate. While addiction is also present in women and increasing, the rate still seems lower. It also coincides regionally, alcohol addiction is higher in rural regions, where the suicide rates are also higher. Whether the reason is causative or just incidental to  other causes (e.g. socioeconomic stress) is different to disentangle, of course. There are other factors, such as lung cancer rates being fairly high in Poland, though I am not sure whether the rates are different enough between men and women to make an impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CharonY said:

Ok this is a bit topic with a lot of literature and I am going to preface that due to the complexity there is no universal answer and certainly not one applicable to all societies. I will also start by stating that the issue with the movie is not bringing up the issue (it is the only redeemable element of it) but promoting or at least implying reasons that are often bad science or at least oversimplifying the issue or discuss it in a way that is entirely based on a lack of an understanding of modern research on feminism and gender issues. And by mostly focusing on controversial figures in the narrative, the filmmaker is doing the difficult question a disservice. It is a bit like trying to reconcile modern politics mostly by interviewing youtube personalities.

Now that that is out of the way I have to further add that I have not read a lot studies on Poland specifically, so it is not clear what other reports, which were mostly conducted in North America (and quite a few in South Korea) apply.

The topic is, as I mentioned, quite large and difficult and a single post will not suffice to even put a dent into existing literature. One thing that is striking and actually has been found in several countries over the world is the so-called gender paradox: women attempts suicide more often, but men complete (i.e. die from) suicide more frequently. For now I will try to address some of the lit that I recall on that specific matter.

1) means of suicide. A part of the puzzle are suicide methods. Men are more likely to use methods that are violent and have a higher risk of death (esp. firearms). Women tend to go for pills (which are very ineffective) and exsanguination. But this can only be seen as a part of the issue. And in some areas it could be consider a minor element.

2) Men are far less likely to search for help when they start having suicidal thoughts. This is a part that the movie almost starts to get right and the veers into a weird direction. There are several explanation. However, one concept that has been explored more in recent years involve the issue of toxic masculinity under the broader concept of patriarchy. Simply (and I am probably doing social scientists a disfavour here, so my apologies for butchering the concept), in strongly patriarchic societies, men are expected to conform to certain norms of masculinity. And one of the aspects that can be considered to be toxic for men is the fact that they are supposed to be strong and self-reliant. I.e. asking for help is seen as a weakness and emasculating. I think quite a few men can somewhat relate to that. I still observe in myself that I'd rather spend too much time researching how a particular tool or piece for some work is called rather than just ask someone who knows his stuff because I feel like an idiot. It is silly, but often one can help oneself as one has been educated as such as a child. Not getting help during depression or otherwise being in situations where suicidal thoughts arise are an extreme version of it. What the movie gets wrong is that it presents that as opposing view on women's right. In fact both,  power imbalance of women  and disadvantaging men when they need help, are outcrops  and consequences of a patriarchic  system.

3) Somewhat connected, there are often different social structures that help in prevention, and in many groups they are stronger with females. Men are more likely to have fewer familal connections, though it depends a lot on the individual and cultural background.

4) Another connected element is that in a patriarchic society men are expected to be the provider in a family. Socioeconomic downturns therefore place a higher burden (societal and mental) on men than women.

5) Even if patriarchies are one important aspect, other cultural norms, connected or not also seem to have an influence. In Hispanic communities within the USA female suicide is higher than male suicide, for example

6) Age, ethnicity and many more factors: as can be seen, if one starts at data in more detail more patterns emerge that make overarching narratives difficult. In some communities suicide rate is highest for middle-aged men. In others, younger folks have a higher rate. In some areas especially younger women complete suicide more frequently than their age peers. Each of those factors have been subjected to studies and a variety of conclusions have been drawn. As intersectionality is becoming more of a thing more finer grained research is being conducted and published. 

There is much more out there to talk about, but a) the post is already long and I really, really do not want to spellcheck so just a final point for now:

i will go back to the movie after all now here:

The part that the movie gets right in that respect is that often there is more focus on the women's side in the feminist movement. There are reasons for that, mostly because those can be addressed via legal challenges (e.g. discrimination lawsuits). However, forcing society to think conceptually different of male and female roles in society rather than e.g. workplace of places of power (which again is part of the broader feminist movement), is far more a niche discussion. The ultimate sin of the movie  is that instead of interviewing folks in the feminist movement that have their roots in the Men's Liberation movement, they went to the anti-feminists to get the opposing view. That latter group is doing little but in fact increase the gender tension and if anything promote just a different flavour of toxic masculinity. There are plenty of groups within the broader feminist movement (and I think the issue is really the historic naming of the movement that make people thing it is only about women) that fall under the concept of the Men's liberation movement that would have been far more educational to talk to (or perhaps sociologist studying that field).

 

Edit:

with respect to Poland and high suicide rates, there seems to be a similar trend as in Russia: levels of addiction, including alcohol, are increasing and those seem to coincide also with higher suicide rate. While addiction is also present in women and increasing, the rate still seems lower. It also coincides regionally, alcohol addiction is higher in rural regions, where the suicide rates are also higher. Whether the reason is causative or just incidental to  other causes (e.g. socioeconomic stress) is different to disentangle, of course. There are other factors, such as lung cancer rates being fairly high in Poland, though I am not sure whether the rates are different enough between men and women to make an impact.

Right now I can only throw „where is your objectivity and your empathy?” at you and „why does an ideaology is taking your voice and speaking for you?” I havent ran your post through a word count but theres at least 5 or six patriarchy references in your post either direct or context wise.

CharonY, I am momentarily indisposed right now and out of respect for the subject and the forum I will refrain from answering further untill I have a more suitable moment and a free half hour to compile a post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, koti said:

Right now I can only throw „where is your objectivity and your empathy?” at you and „why does an ideaology is taking your voice and speaking for you?” I havent ran your post through a word count but theres at least 5 or six patriarchy references in your post either direct or context wise.

My feeling is that you are underinformed in the theoretical framework surrounding gender differences in suicide (and other aspects of social science) and frankly, that is quite understandable. I had a lot of misconceptions myself (especially when I was young scientist with a certain disdain of social sciences). However, over years I got to meet quite a few researchers from that field  and they cured me of a part of my ignorance, which sparked my interest in the field in the first place. Thus, rather than being tainted by ideology, I merely gained a bit of more insight what the works actually mean. I.e. if you think that the use of the term "patriarchy" means taking sides, then you are probably using the term  in a different way than defined in science.

To make it a bit clearer: in sociological sciences a patriarchy refers to a social system in which it is assumed that there is a natural distinction between men and women when it comes to social roles. It explains the dominance of men in positions of e.g. political  power, authorative positions and so on as natural the consequence of these differences. It is important to note that it does not describe women as bad and men as good (or any of the other misconceptions). It also does not place blame on a gender or has other ideological connotation. Rather, it is the description of a system in which it is assumed that man and women have naturally different roles in society leading to a natural order of power. 

Thus, in a patriarchic system it is assumed that men are naturally the head of a family unit, as provider and protector. Women as the weaker gender would primarily viewed as support and nurturer. This a very simplicistic description, but leads to the consequences I mentioned above. In this society, a man who is unable to provide or does not appear strong is, in fact not fulfilling its obligation as man. Thus, perhaps somewhat paradoxically, a system which elevates the power position of men, also puts a massive amount of obligation one men, more so on women in many aspects. Together with the issue that men are supposed to be self-reliant and more independent than women, seems to have some impact on increased suicide rates (rather than attempted suicide and/or reaching out for help when having suicidal thoughts) of men compared to women in a number of societies. 

Note that this is not universally the case. In China, for example, completed suicide in women is higher than for men. Some studies suggest that it may be in line with their failure in familail success (though there are also other potential contributing factors).

I will also say that this is of course at best only one part of the issue (I just happened to have some of those papers fresh in my mind), there is a lot of more lit out there but so far much of it is still explorative and there is quite some disagreement about the relevance of different contributions. The important point though is that there is increasing evidence that at least some elements seems to be connected how we see different gender roles. Whether you want to call it patriarchy or any other name, if that term somehow offends you, does not matter. The key concept is in terms of suicide research is that men are under higher societal pressure in certain respects of society, combined with the inability to fulfill societal expectations. The correlation with socioeconomic success, is one strong indicator for high suicide rate of middle-aged men in the US, for example (but does not explain youth suicide). And this would only make sense in a patriarchic system where men are expected to be performers in that regard.

I should also add that there are some publications that contest the gender role aspect and point to diverse other elements. Including a presumed higher resilience to stress. Though I have not found sufficient of those to see a proper direction emerging. Personally I do think that there are regional and cultural overlays that may play a more important role than those overarching theories imply and more fine-grained research would be needed to figure that out.

Edit: I should add that an additional common misconception is that in a patriarchic society evil men are oppressing poor women. It may be a consequence in many cases, but the framework assumes that this is a societal structure. I.e. women contribute to the system as well as men (albeit typically via different mechanisms). In a patriarchic society women could therefore be less driven (and are therefore less stressed) to succeed economically, but may also contribute to the stress one men, as they, too expect and demand men to succeed in that regard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have changes in suicide rates been accentuated by the last 20-30 years of changes in Poland's society ?
Were people of the former USSR sphere of influence expecting more from those changes ?

As CharonY pointed out, pessimistic attitudes about life often go hand-in-hand with other negative or self-destructive attitudes/habits, such as heavy drinking. People tend to use drinking or other chemical means to forget about their problems, but usually end up wallowing in self pity, and make the situation worse.

Nobody's life is perfect, but obsessing about life's problems leads to a downward spiral.
Best to consider all the good things that bring you happiness and your life fulfillment.

Maybe you need to make good on your promise to come back to Canada, and leave Poland's problems behind, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23.11.2018 at 12:51 AM, koti said:

Apparently, Poland is a country in which the ratio of men suicide to women suicide is highest in the world

Men with depression usually are choosing to hang them self (in the country with easy access to guns, they are used instead). This method has almost 100% efficiency. Nobody of friends and family know about their internal problems, as they are reluctant to reveal their state of mind.

Women with depression usually are choosing to overdose medicament. This method has pretty small efficiency. They're also more keen to reveal that they have mental problems to friends and family.

Looking up absolute numbers might give you misleading information. You should also look up for unsuccessful attempts, and diagnosed depression.

On 23.11.2018 at 12:51 AM, koti said:

If anyone knows how to debunk this or at least has some tips on how to stop thinking about it I’d be much obliged. 

What is your diet? Are you liking or not liking extremely spicy dishes? I recommend e.g. Vietnamese spicy and sorrow soup, double portion or twice a day. You should immediately see you're feeling better after eating it. Capsaicin is an active component of chili peppers. It is common for people to experience pleasurable and even euphoric effects from ingesting capsaicin. There are produced and released endorphins (natural narcotics). Search net how to produce and release endorphins other ways.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but there are a lot of regrets associated with eating spicy foods.
Usually the next morning when you go to the bathroom.
( too much information ? )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MigL said:

Have changes in suicide rates been accentuated by the last 20-30 years of changes in Poland's society ?

Yes it has. I got curious and started looking in my free time at some research on Poland. It is quite interesting, but I need much more time to make any sense of it, to be honest. Hoefer et al. published a paper on suicide trends in Poland between 1970 and 2009 and there is a substantial increase, predominantly in men. From the little reading I got the most common explanations include:

- undercounting of femal suicide (there is some evidence that more female than male suicides are put in the category "death with undetermined intent", which is especially high for poisoning)

- lower help-seeking behaviour (as outlined above)

- underdiagnosis of the so-called "male depressive syndrome" which is characterized by low stress tolerance, impulse control and highly linked to suicide

- potential increase in male mental health following the post-soviet era (haven't looked at that lit yet, but there seems to be quite a few things out there)

 

One of the take home messages however is that there may be a lack of support structure for suicidal folks potential coupled with social stigma. If one feels depressed or otherwise, it is important to seek help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 9:56 PM, CharonY said:

The part that the movie gets right in that respect is that often there is more focus on the women's side in the feminist movement. There are reasons for that, mostly because those can be addressed via legal challenges (e.g. discrimination lawsuits). However, forcing society to think conceptually different of male and female roles in society rather than e.g. workplace of places of power (which again is part of the broader feminist movement), is far more a niche discussion. The ultimate sin of the movie  is that instead of interviewing folks in the feminist movement that have their roots in the Men's Liberation movement, they went to the anti-feminists to get the opposing view. That latter group is doing little but in fact increase the gender tension and if anything promote just a different flavour of toxic masculinity. There are plenty of groups within the broader feminist movement (and I think the issue is really the historic naming of the movement that make people thing it is only about women) that fall under the concept of the Men's liberation movement that would have been far more educational to talk to (or perhaps sociologist studying that field).

I'd say other than this paragraph, you have a very well written and informed post.

Anyways, a couple of things.

First of all, the reason the feminist movement is more powerful is not simply mostly because it's easier to tackle, it's a lot more complex than that. I'd agree that it plays a partial role, but there are other ones. For example, feminists actively oppose virtually every men's activist group. Even you've done this here. You referenced the men's group in the documentary as promoting "just a different flavor of toxic masculinity." The men's group referenced in the documentary were mainly addressing things such as men's suicide rates, workplace deaths, the disparity in prison sentences, and the disparity in child domestic cases. Those are all valid concerns, in my opinion, however they're considered toxic masculinity to the feminist movement. The University of York had to cancel a men's event about those issues simply due to the number of protests and outcry from students, staff, and the feminist movement. When the documentary came out, it was widely protested by the feminist movement, the majority of whom never even watched it.

You claim they're doing little but increase gender tension, however, they're actively going around the country speaking about men's health, encouraging men to seek mental help when they need it, setting up mental health hotlines, and more. That is a lot more than simply increasing gender tension in my opinion. 

Another thing you said here is that they went to anti-feminists. Again, they were men's groups, not anti-feminists. Just because there is a men's right's group doesn't mean they're against women's rights, the same way Black Live's Matter isn't saying only black live's matter.

Additionally, fun fact, The Red Pill was originally designed to be a literal anti-men's movement. The woman who put it together was an outspoken feminist who she herself admitted was bent on destroying the men's movement once and for all. However, during editing the documentary together, she eventually changed her mind because she realized how much she had to assume about these people to villify them to the degree she was, and that she had so many false prejudices against them that she changed her position. In fact, this is her at a Ted Talk she gave:

I highly encourage you to listen to it, as it gives an entirely new perspective when watching the Red Pill. By the way, when was the last time you watched it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

First of all, the reason the feminist movement is more powerful is not simply mostly because it's easier to tackle, it's a lot more complex than that. I'd agree that it plays a partial role, but there are other ones. For example, feminists actively oppose virtually every men's activist group.

I think you are mixing up different groups. A bit of history, perhaps to clear things up. In the 60-70s in parallel to rising feminist groups there was also the men's liberation movement. In many ways there goals were similar to the feminist movement of their time. I.e. a rethinking of gender role in modern society. However. this movement underwent a split. A part was pro-feminist and sought saw  the similarity in the goals. They are now part of the modern feminist movement. The folks interviewed in the movement, however, are the other split of the same movement (predominatnly from the moderate-right to conservative branch). However that group became increasingly anti-feminist and considered men to be the truly oppressed party. That in fact, their suffering are not institutional (as asserted by feminist and pro-feminist men's liberation folks) but rather because of the increase of feminism. In a way, it is similar to another extreme range within the feminist side, which outright reject masculinity and claim that all the issues are solely to lie on the feet of men. The disservice that these folks are doing is that both are barking up the wrong trees when it comes to actual issues and do not much but muddy the water and blame each other.

And yes there are men's group that are a positive force and are actively involved in gender justice such as MenEngage and what you describe is closer what they and other groups are doing.But again, the folks highlighted in the movie are, for the most part, unfortunately not them, which I find is one of the biggest failings of it. 

Among these interviewed are e.g. the president of the National Coalition for Men, who actively deny that women have ever been discriminated against, claim, against all evidence, that false rape accusations are rampant and have posted photos and names of folks that they think of as false accusers and so on. It is distinctly anti-feminist at its core, especially as they seek to oppose what they call "women industries" who are actively oppressing men. This is a distinct change from the view of gender issues as a societal problem. 

And within their respective spheres the leaders of the various groups  have also shown controversial views and engaged in scummy tactics.

Quote

The same month, A Voice for Men set up a copycat website that appeared intended to divert traffic and donations from the White Ribbon Campaign, a violence prevention group founded in response to the 1989 mass shooting in Montreal. In addition to claiming that its namesake was a scam, Elam’s fake White Ribbon site argued that “corrupt” academics have conspired to cover up the epidemic of violence against men, and that women’s shelters are “hotbeds of gender hatred.” When critics called him out for the deceptive site, Elam wrote a scathing retort. “Go right straight to Hell, you gang of bigoted, lying scumbags,” it read. “That is, if Hell will even have you pieces of shit.”

And again, it is not that there are underlying issues that need to be addressed. But they poison the well by pointing to feminists and declare that to be the problem, similar when folks point to immigrants for economic woes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I think you are mixing up different groups. A bit of history, perhaps to clear things up. In the 60-70s in parallel to rising feminist groups there was also the men's liberation movement. In many ways there goals were similar to the feminist movement of their time. I.e. a rethinking of gender role in modern society. However. this movement underwent a split. A part was pro-feminist and sought saw  the similarity in the goals. They are now part of the modern feminist movement. The folks interviewed in the movement, however, are the other split of the same movement (predominatnly from the moderate-right to conservative branch). However that group became increasingly anti-feminist and considered men to be the truly oppressed party. That in fact, their suffering are not institutional (as asserted by feminist and pro-feminist men's liberation folks) but rather because of the increase of feminism. In a way, it is similar to another extreme range within the feminist side, which outright reject masculinity and claim that all the issues are solely to lie on the feet of men. The disservice that these folks are doing is that both are barking up the wrong trees when it comes to actual issues and do not much but muddy the water and blame each other.

And yes there are men's group that are a positive force and are actively involved in gender justice such as MenEngage and what you describe is closer what they and other groups are doing.But again, the folks highlighted in the movie are, for the most part, unfortunately not them, which I find is one of the biggest failings of it. 

Among these interviewed are e.g. the president of the National Coalition for Men, who actively deny that women have ever been discriminated against, claim, against all evidence, that false rape accusations are rampant and have posted photos and names of folks that they think of as false accusers and so on. It is distinctly anti-feminist at its core, especially as they seek to oppose what they call "women industries" who are actively oppressing men. This is a distinct change from the view of gender issues as a societal problem. 

Interesting, I did not know this before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.