"Feminism causes male suicides"

Response
Original Article*

The original editorial was written for Men's Health Month in New Zealand. The response was written to address certain claims in the original. The original has been taken of the newspaper's official site since.

The original editorial was a piece concerning male suicide rates in NZ. The piece itself I maintain is rather mild. The "controversy" probably started here:

The claim is, misinformed, and insensitive at worst. I disagree with the claim, but the kind of response generated has been well-overstated. For example, this:

And then this:

And this was before accusing the editor of lacking compassion for women who have been hospitalised as a result of self-harm. The irony is of course that she managed to reduce the male suicide deaths as a statistic to be compared to other countries. How, and what terms can she claim "compassion"? Never mind that said "answer" answers nothing.

So much for the male survivors huh? And isn't the claim just a wild speculation extrapolated from two sentences out of the whole editorial?

Conclusion, said author of response has shown anything but compassion for the families who have gone through the trauma of having a loved one committing suicide. It is mere click-baiting, under the banner of "feminism", while using the memories of the families to achieve her goal of "changing minds, and shaping perspectives and attitudes towards (male) suicide." 

And of course, hi-jacking Men's Health Month into something about women.

Rant over

To be honest the original article was quite absurd to read, it's like the author was repressing but also indirectly expressing his frustration with feminism. I'm not surprised with those hostile responses.

As you say, the original does give that feeling. But the standard of the response is below what I personally expect. Especially if it is written on behalf of the MHF (Mental Health Foundation).

But if the response is what mainstream feminism represents- i.e. over-sensitive, hyper-reactive, callous ("confident")- then it is quite frustrating.

Heck, even a mere breaking down of the response is enough to provoke a knee-jerk reaction.

Are you more upset at the response than the original article itself? From the title of this post I thought we're discussing the speculation but I sense that you have bigger issues with the response from the Mental Health Foundation. 

The article was horribly written at best.  The author tried hard to make it sound like a food for thought but instead pushed his anti-feminism agenda.  IMO it's pretty outrageous and irresponsible to make a bold claim on sensitive topics like suicide based on personal opinion/assumption.  

Now for the response, I don't see a problem in your third quote. They are facts to weaken/dispute the claim and the following paragraph acknowledged that men do need help, and in fact, both genders could use help and support during difficult times. 

I get that the author in the response is a bit angry at the claim, which is understandable. But I don't see anywhere that she advocates for feminism.

As you say, my issue is with the response, considering that it is from the Mental Health Foundation (MHF). If it was a personal opinion piece, I'm not bothered. But if it is indeed written as a representation of the MHF, it speaks volumes of their attitudes towards mental health in men and women. Especially when I thought the piece was meant to be about Men's Health Month? 

The thing is, the editorial was pretty badly written, but the response is not all that better. As implied, I expected the spokesperson from the MHF to be more aware, and sensitive to issues such as suicide. 

The feeling I get from the response (rightly or wrongly), is that if I do end up with mental health issues, I do not want it from the MHF, if the attitude as expressed by the response author is representative of the organisation.   

Thanks Pearltea, You seem to have made me spit out what was bothering me. Especially after being closed down a bit on FB comments, having been seen as defending the editorial... 

In relation to the third quote, which I assume to be about male suicide rates, I have no problem if this didn't appear:

Thing is, hospitalised individuals are well, still alive, and have a potential to recover, no matter how slim. The dead are dead.

In regards to why those men chose suicide, who knows? Perhaps, just perhaps, those men who did choose suicide could not handle the rapid change in social roles. And to them attributing their sufferings as a consequence to empowering women was the easiest fruit to pick. So even the citing of stats does not address the original speculation. 

The response really just becomes a personal vendetta, against an editor who said the wrong thing.

Correlation is not causation 

Correlation is not causation

Correlation is not causation

Important items always need repeating.

Points taken. I do think that the author became a bit more emotional in the second half of her response and went off on a tangent.  Mentioning women's struggles with other mental illnesses was off-topic and does not address the issue.

Care to explain why? Is it because the organization is now less likable or less credible to you? 

---------------

I'm going to derail a little here and vent about my two major pet peeves since you mentioned them here - misuse of descriptive statistics and misunderstanding of feminism. 

1. Statistics - It bugs the @#*% out of me when people use statistics to misinform others. One convenient way is to confuse correlation with causation, whether intentional or not.  Obviously the ones that are done deliberately are dangerous and harmful, but the unintentional ones are not innocuous neither.  

2. Feminism - It's frustrating to me that the support of gender equality leads to a lot of misunderstandings in feminism or even resulted in gender wars. The bad ones are the those who either try to push an anti-feminism agenda like the author in the article, or those who engage in feminist hypocrisy (like setting double standards, falsely crying victims, trying to get free passes when it's convenient, opening the door for one then shutting it for the rest) 

Care to explain why? Is it because the organization is now less likable or less credible to you? 

---------------

I'm going to derail a little here and vent about my two major pet peeves since you mentioned them here - misuse of descriptive statistics and misunderstanding of feminism. 

1. Statistics - It bugs the @#*% out of me when people use statistics to misinform others. One convenient way is to confuse correlation with causation, whether intentional or not.  Obviously the ones that are done deliberately are dangerous and harmful, but the unintentional ones are not innocuous neither.  

2. Feminism - It's frustrating to me that the support of gender equality leads to a lot of misunderstandings in feminism or even resulted in gender wars. The bad ones are the those who either try to push an anti-feminism agenda like the author in the article, or those who engage in feminist hypocrisy (like setting double standards, falsely crying victims, trying to get free passes when it's convenient, opening the door for one then shutting it for the rest) 

Because what the author indicates to me personally, is that if it's a female in need of mental support, she will be given full support, as far as the jurisdiction of the MHF extends.

On the other hand, if it's a male in need of support, he will be given a list of numbers to call. Any extra support (within reason) will be dismissed with an attitude of "women have it far worse". 

It's a bit like saying to someone depressed "things will get better" or similar. It may seem a fact, but it does not help the person concerned. Because to the person, it is the end of the world, to them.

Of course, I'm speaking subjectively, based on personal experience of having gone through a phase of PTSD when around 14/15 years of age. It's one thing to talk to someone, but a completely different matter, when it comes to finding that "right" person. Most of the time, when the incident was talked about, there tends to be an over-reaction. And then one tries to soothe down that over reaction because of unintentional trigger. 

(By analogy, homeopathy seems a better choice, if the only other alternative is to be treated by a woefully incompetent doctor, since homeopathy does nothing anyway, therefore no extra side-effects.)

I talk about death in perhaps the most insensitive way possible. But I do not dismiss death. Just as I still remember watching, the injured security guard at the school gates going from life to death. Whatever thoughts and feelings I had back then can still be felt, just a lot more diluted. (I still had to go to school for the next 3 years...) Thing is, it is to be understood that the old man's death will be forgotten eventually, or become a statistic. In fact, aside from the (unfortunate) eye-witnesses, nobody will recall the event, and those who do tend to add the salt & pepper to the fight that they saw happened, just not the bloody aftermath.

(I need to calm the f!@k down...)

I am being perhaps harsh, towards the response author, and cutting the editor slack. So I am, and I am not sorry about it either. The editor, at least did not reduce the deaths to a mere statistic, a number. Maybe his speculations are off-target, but he retained some basic decency, a basic degree of respect to those passed. 

The response author, I cannot extend the same leniency. Never mind, her misuse of anecdotal evidence (twitter from one woman), her dismissive use of statistics and lip-service, and the topic hi-jacking. But it is the unnecessary involvement of those who have gone through the ordeal of having lost a loved one/someone close to suicide, using this to shift the focus to women's mental health issues, and finally to accuse the editor of lacking compassion for women, by appearing to be on the moral high ground. I am tempted, but I shall refrain from saying she is agenda-driven. Fact is, it is she who is lacking in compassion. If the editorial displays a lack of compassion for women, as she claims, then she has shown compassion to no-one, despite pretending otherwise.

Assuming that the front-line staff of MHF will have had some basic training in mental health, and mostly competent. And so she may just be a bad apple. But she is writing as a spokesperson of the MHF, and hence expected to display a much deeper understanding of (in this case) mental health issues. As a result, I expected her to give an in-depth analysis of the issues, and along the line, perhaps correct a few misconceptions along the way. Oh, and in a mature manner     

The burden of responsibility I place on her is based on the fact that she is writing on behalf of MHF (since she has not stated otherwise), and hence what and how she communicates, becomes the face of MHF. 

If indeed her attitude is prevalent of MHF, then at least to me, that is a problem at the organisational level to be solved, if the organisation is to reach its goals. 

-------

What concerns me, and though different but still related to your pet peeves, is intellectual laziness. To specify, "intellectual laziness" has little to do with a person's expert knowledge, and more to do with attitude. It is the willingness to not jump to a conclusion, and investigate the issue. It is the willingness to put oneself in the other person's shoe (no matter how unhygienic it seems) and understand what the other person is trying to say. (Though this is just the philosopher in me speaking: to put your opponents' argument in the best light possible, and show that even in the best case scenario, the argument fails to be adequate. (or something like that) Otherwise known as the "Principle of Charity")

What bugs me is this jumping on the bandwagon, based on what sounds "right", as opposed to paying attention to what has been said. It is this attitude of just throwing caution to the wind, the unwillingness to stop and ask those "uncomfortable" questions to avoid being seen as the "party-pooper".

(I need a breath of fresh air. I seem to be a bit more triggered than expected) 

This post is still not as measured as I want. But for now, it shall do.

本篇文章已被 willyho 於 Jul 6 2017, 00:30 編輯過

Let's be gentleman, ladies FIRST!