William Essex
Shall I tell you a story?
  • Dear Diary
  • About Us
  • Back Stories
  • Read My Shorts?

Man down?

10/7/2016

0 Comments

 
There's a report by the Samaritans about men and suicide. It's titled Men, Suicide and Society, and it finds that men are more likely to take their own lives than women (in the UK and ROI). The report looks at 'Why disadvantaged men in mid-life die by suicide', and that subtitle pretty much gives you the conclusion: they do it because they're disadvantaged. As the foreword puts it, "men are three times more likely than women to die by suicide. Even more glaring is the socio-economic inequality in suicide risk - with those in the poorest socio-economic circumstances approximately ten times more at risk than those in the most affluent conditions."
     If you're a poor man, your options for a mid-life crisis include taking your own life. This is a "male suicide emergency", says one newspaper headline, in that "the male suicide rate is at a 14-year high" (same convenient source). Men, Suicide and Society focuses on gender, obviously, and on socio-economics, also obviously. It reviews "evidence and theory in psychology, sociology, economics and gender studies", and is convincing - I think - in what it says about the personality traits intrinsic to the condition of masculinity (some of them taught, learned, inferred; some not). Where it goes into talking about feelings, I was reminded of books by Deborah Tannen that I read years ago.
     Men, Suicide and Society doesn't cover everything. There's talk about the "feminisation" of employment (defined as the shift towards a service economy and away from heavy manual labour), and of a range of other issues, but no mention of another much-discussed socio-economic (?) factor that might be significant here. "This report has chosen not to focus on the role of ethnicity," it tells us, and then we jump a bit about sexuality, which is also omitted, to find the explanation that "examining the experiences and identities of British and Irish middle-aged working-class men, the majority of whom are white and heterosexual, is core to reducing death by suicide".
     Gender yes, but ethnicity no? I found this surprising, Most of them are white. Are we not saying, then, that white disadvantaged men in mid-life are more likely to die by suicide? Mostly white, anyway? I went online and found the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP). Never heard of it, and only know about it what I've read online. But the AFSP also publishes studies on suicide. The latest, which draws on statistics of the same vintage as those in Men, Suicide and Society (2013, although the AFSP's population is obviously bigger) draws this conclusion: "White males accounted for 70% of all suicides in 2013." I wasn't surprised. [There's a lot more detail than that.]
     Gender and ethnicity get a lot of coverage and it's impossible to be objective about them. I don't want to talk about age or sexuality, for the same reason. Nor do I want to defend men. History is full of white male oppressors, exploiters, discriminators, deniers of the rights of just about everybody else. Today, men are more dangerous to women than women are to men. In short, it's much easier to depict men - white men in particular - as aggressors needing to be controlled, than as victims in need of support.
     And yet they're killing themselves.
     It's also easy enough to poke fun at men: today's 'patriarch' is more likely to be depicted as a middle-aged domestic blunderer than as any kind of authority figure. So much for the passing on of a role model. From Men, Suicide and Society: "Men in mid-life are now part of the ‘buffer’ generation, not sure whether to be like their older, more traditional, strong, silent, austere fathers or like their younger, more progressive, individualistic sons." They're also somewhere between invisible and valueless: a recent news report told us that a group of eight migrants saved from a sinking small boat "included one woman"; any report on a disaster will routinely make clear that the casualties "included women and children". What's the value of a disadvantaged white man in a news report?
     None of this adds up to an argument that we should suddenly turn our attention to mens' rights. Because men are still - for want of a better expression - the bad guys. The 2016 Glastonbury Festival included a venue called The Sisterhood, which was "an intersectional, queer, trans and disability-inclusive space open to all people who identify as women". People who identified as men were excluded. Why? "Women-only spaces are necessary in a world that is still run by and designed to benefit mainly men. Oppression against women continues in various manifestations around the world today, in different cultural contexts." Fair enough. But my question would be: who's running and designing the world to benefit mainly men? Because the world is not being designed and run by disadvantaged white men, and they're certainly not the beneficiaries.
     Mostly, the world is being run by advantaged white men, with some parts of it run by advantaged non-white men, and in some places, advantaged women. Mostly, it's men. Mostly, they're white. All of them are by definition advantaged, whether or not they realise, acknowledge and/or accept that. If The Sisterhood has a purpose, it is to give the disadvantaged a space. It would be ridiculous to compare The Sisterhood's exclusion of men with the way the old-time London clubs used to exclude women (some still do, I think) - except to make the point that disadvantaged white men would be excluded from both. Advantaged white men design and run the world to benefit their own kind - which is not the same as saying that men run the world for men. There's a small, self-perpetuating group of white men that sets itself apart from other white men, as well as from everybody else.
     Generally speaking, we don't have to declare our support for the disadvantaged, because it's assumed. We could all complete the sentences "I am a..." and "I am not a..." with a word that ends in "-ist". But we don't have to, because being a feminist and not being a racist (for example) are taken for granted as the default position for any right-thinking person. We don't discriminate.
     And yet we do. There's no similarly taken-for-granted "-ism" for disadvantaged white men in mid-life, although the suicide statistics suggest that they need one. We may have learned (from history, from the way men behave) a collection of negative associations to go with the qualities "white" and "male", but today's disadvantaged white men are as disadvantaged as the rest of us.
     And they're killing themselves.
     Excluding men from a women-only space makes as much sense as excluding women from a men-only space, but it's not the same as excluding oppressors from an oppressed-only space.
     Except ... all men are potentially dangerous. More so than women, say the statistics.
     There is no easy answer to this.
     One answer to the "male suicide emergency" would be to adjust government policy so that it helps out middle-aged white blokes. But wouldn’t that mean at least some redistribution of advantage away from people who are not middle-aged, nor white, nor blokes? Imagine the political fall-out, and the unintended consequences.
     Sometimes, I just want to argue against the classification of people into easily labelled groups – although I suppose our least-worst approach to government requires it. But it’s difficult sometimes to keep in mind that every hard-working family that is just about managing, or disadvantaged white man, or whatever other shorthand classification we’re using today, is in truth a collection of distinct individuals. I want to argue for empathy.
     Maybe trying to fix things is the wrong approach. Maybe identifying a problem and then looking for a solution – even making the assumption that there will be a solution – is to mistake the nature of the world. It’s imperfect. Trying to fix it won’t change that. Forget about hard-working families and go make friends with the people next door.
     And be careful.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    In a desk diary scavenged from a house of the dead, a man records his own experiences of the end times: what he has to do to survive; how he came to be marooned where he is; how he reacts to the discovery that he is not alone.

    Picture
    Over coffee, a young journalist gets The Message.

    RSS Feed

    What happens here

    This site is no longer updated weekly because I've taken to writing at Medium dot com instead. I may come back, but for now, I'm enjoying the simplicity at Medium.

    No data is kept on this site overnight. Medium posts might sometimes turn up here, and posts from here might sometimes turn up on Medium.
        Mind you, if you get a sense of deja vu when reading my work, that may be because you've lived this life before.

    Picture
    There's a page for this [edit: there isn't], but maybe you'd like to see the cover here?

    Where are we now? We're hurtling round the sun, held to the ground by a weak force that we don’t begin to understand, arguing about trade deals between the land masses on a planet mostly covered by water.
       The dolphins must think us ridiculous. No wonder they only come to the shallow water to play with us, not to signal their most complex philosophies. More.


    Riddle. It takes two to make me, but when I'm made, I'm only a memory. What am I? Scroll down to find out.

    Is that a catastrophe I see before me? Could be. There was a clear sky earlier, but now clouds are encroaching from the North. We could be in for a storm. More.


    There's a picture, it's just loading...
    You found me!
    Welcome. Thank you for coming. But am I the right
    William Essex? Click here
    to meet some more.



    Read My Shorts?

    Here is yet another page of old blog posts and other writings. Sorry, but I need my metaphorical sock drawer for metaphorical socks. The link to the page is right at the end of the paragraph here.

    A very green picture. I can't remember where I took this.


    Roads without end

    Here is a passage from a review of the book The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart. I haven't read the book (yet), but the collected reviews would make a worthwhile set of political arguments in their own right. More.

    Picture
    Also available in English. Look further down.

    State of the Union

    Several commentators today saying that they've lost confidence in the US. Making their point by talking up the glories of the past. After two weeks of this administration, they're not going back.
         Were they wrong, and they've seen the light? Or has the US changed? I guess the latter is the intended meaning. But we should at least acknowledge the possibility... More.

    Categories
    (Started 4th November 2017; forgotten shortly after that.)

    All
    Abuse
    Consent
    Media


    Kitchen parenting

    I have teenage children. When they're home, sooner or later one of them will come to me and say: "Dad! We're going to make a mess in the kitchen!
       "Great!" I will reply, picking up on the tone of voice. "What are you going to do?"
        "We thought we'd slice up some peppers and onion and bits of chicken and leave them glued to the bottom of the frying pan. Burn something in one of the saucepans and leave it floating in the sink."
        "Anything else?" More.

    Picture
    Variously available online, in a range of formats.

    No pinpricks

    Okay, so a certain President recently made a speech to his people, in which he told them that their country's military "don't do pinpricks". His intention was to get across that when those soldiers do a "limited" or even "targeted" strike, it hurts. But those of us in the cynical wing of the listening public took it the other way. More.


    Picture
    Ceased to exist. Sorry.

    Making mistakes

    We all make mistakes in our relationships. Some are mistakes that can be corrected with an apology. Sometimes - "if only I'd said that, and not that." Sometimes, they're mistakes that are incomprehensible even to ourselves, and sometimes, we do things that show us up as not quite the likeable hero of our own story that we want to think we are. More.

    Man down?

    There's a report by the Samaritans about men and suicide. It's titled Men, Suicide and Society, and it finds that men are more likely to take their own lives than women (in the UK and ROI). More.


    Not available for women

    Offending the status quo

    Looking at both the US election and the revived Brexit debate in the UK, the question is not: who wins? but: how did we get here? More.

    Thinks: populism

    Bright, sunny morning. Breeze. Weather forecast said fog, but it's a blue sky overlaid with vapour trails. Windy season, drifts of Autumn-coloured leaves. Thinking, on this morning's walk, about populism. More.

    Picture
    Early morning, Church Street, Falmouth

    9th May 2014

    On the day that I wrote this, the early news told us of a parade in Moscow to celebrate Russia’s defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War. Crimea remained annexed, and the Russia/Ukraine crisis was not resolved. At around half eight, the BBC’s reporter in Moscow was cut off in mid-sentence summarising the military display; the Today programme on Radio 4 cut to the sports news. More.

    Riddle. What are you? You're a conversation!

    Archives

    May 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011

    Picture
    Out of print. Sorry.
No animals were harmed in the making of this website. Other websites are available online (and off). All the content here is copyright William Essex, this year, last year, the year before that and, you
guessed it, the year before that, although I don't have the time right now to hunt out that little symbol. This website uses organic ingredients and respects your privacy. Come back some time.