Religion is a Mental Illness

The simple truth is, a woman can do anything a man can.

There’s no doubt that a woman is no less capable of running a Fortune 500 company, of leading a nation, innovating, breaking records, or reshaping the world for the better.

I’ve seen women do it.

I’ve witnessed the wondrous power of womanhood; as visionaries, as pioneers, CEO’s and commanders-in-chief.

The world is forever changed, in incalculable ways, by countless many, and we are all the better for it.

I am not alone in feeling this way.

But why do so many limit women’s capacity when it cuts the other way?

Why do so many deny women the full gamut of human behaviour…

Are women, like men, not capable of abuse?

Are they not capable of violence, coercion, and malevolence?

Why do so many recognise a woman’s autonomy, but only when she does the things we like and admire?

As iconic feminist Margaret Atwood once said –

‘My fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They’re not angels, incapable of wrongdoing.’

And she’s right.

So let’s take a look at the other half of women’s autonomy. The ugly side, that nobody wants to acknowledge.

So, to the men who were abused by their female partner, what was the final straw?

• Men do it far more often. Which is false. 50% of IPV is bidirectional, 70% of unidirectional IPV is perpetrated by women.
• Men are stronger, so it doesn't matter, it's less of an issue. That is, "quit complaining, shut up and take it."
• He probably deserved it, good on her. That is, "she he was asking for it" has been rehabilitated.
• She did it in self-defence. False. Studies show the motivations are similar for men and women, and "self-defence" is not even in the top 10.

Daisy: There's a big conversation in society about allowing trans women into women's prisons. But you pointed out that the rates of sexual assault by other female inmates, is even higher than male on male sexual assaults in male prisons.

George: Well, that's a great example of the reality of data going against the popular narrative of violence. So yes, there's a lot of conversation about people like, Isla Bryson wanting to go into women's prisons. Although I understand, that is outrageous, and that has exposed sort of ideological blind spots in the political system, it is still only a tiny, tiny portion of the problem.

If you were interested in safeguarding women's prisons, you need to be talking about the entire population of that prison. And it's frustrating how in prison we just throw people in. We just throw people with addiction problems and mental health problems; you have traumatized people and predatory people, including women. Like, often we mix actual gangs together in prison, who are extremely violent, and we say nothing.

And you're absolutely right that there were higher rates of sexual assault in women's prisons between women, than there are in male prisons between men, and not even by a small amount, about 2 or 3 times more.

I just find the conversation around people like Isla Bryson, to be a little bit disingenuous, because it doesn't seem to be about prisoner safeguarding. And if it was, those people would've been talking about it a lot earlier, and a lot more broadly.

It should be said that in absolute numbers, the amount of sexual assault in men's prisons is significantly higher. You're talking about 900,000 cases just in America alone, and if you actually factor that in to all rape cases in America, men are actually the number one victim of rape, if you include prison rape. So, I'm talking about as a percentage of the population it's [female inmate assault] higher, but in absolute numbers it's higher, higher for men.

Daisy: George, you've also pointed out that, that boys are more likely to be victims of modern slavery, and sextortion. Can you tell us a bit about that?

George: So, two separate, two separate issues there.

Modern slavery, there's a push in the UK, for example, to expand the definition of modern slavery to include people that are criminally exploited, such as through gangs. Overwhelmingly, it's about 90% men, and young boys especially, that are brought into gangs and exploited, and in that widened view of modern slavery, men and especially young boys are the number one victim of modern slavery in the UK today.

Sextortion is a new and emerging problem of which boys are the primary target, and that's where boys are often targeted on social media, by both men and women, pretending to be women. It's not actually women doing it necessarily. And they're basically encouraged to send nude photos of themselves. And then those photos are then used to blackmail that boy, into sending money over.

And it's led to suicides, like dozens of suicides in America last year. And no one seems to be talking about it. Parents aren't safeguarding their boys, and if you get one thing from this interview, please talk to your boys, if you have a boy, about not sending certain photos to strangers online.

1. Rape of women and "made to penetrate" (i.e. male rape) occur at similar rates in the general population. (In some years, the CDC recorded significantly more male rape - "made to penetrate" - than female rape, although this was hidden by categorization.)
2. Sexual coercion is comparable for both men and women, but somewhat higher for women. Unwanted sexual contact is similar for both men and women, but slightly higher for men.
3. Sexual victimization of female inmates occurs at a higher rate by other female inmates than it does by men in the general population.
4. The rate of sexual victimization by other female inmates is higher, per capita, than male on male sexual victimization by inmates.
5. Due to differences of incarceration rates, in absolute numbers, men comprise far and away the majority of rape victims. And it's not even close.
6. For females in juvenile detention, female-on-female inmate sexual violence is the most common dynamic. For males, female guard on male juvenile is the most common sexual violence dynamic; 96% of guard-on-male juvenile inmate sexual assault is committed by female guards.

Like, if you really want to hit the hornet's nest, go try posting content about male victims of abuse, especially abuse by women. And it's just, it's seen as a highly controversial topic. And I do not understand why, it doesn't need to be.

It's unbelievable how wrong we are, and the amount of damage that is done to women and men, as a result of being that wrong. And it's annoying because domestic violence didn't start off this way.

I've met the woman that set up the first refuge in the world for women, called Erin. She's a genius. Her strategy was amazing. Like, because there's no money for domestic violence. There's little now, and there was nothing then. She just basically went and squatted in houses. So, she would just go into a house, squat, bring in the women and girls, to squat in the house. They would take over, and she would just go to the next house. And she went house, to house, to house, took over whole streets, took over a whole hotel, and filled them up with abused women.

And she straight away, the first day, the first day she opened up the first refuge, she realised, most of these women are violent themselves. 60 of the first 100 women that came to her, were at least as violent, if not more violent than the husband they were fleeing from.

I don't know if there's anyone in the world with more experience of working with abused women than Erin Pizzey. And she absolutely does not think it's a 'gendered issue.' And she thinks the 'gendered issue' side of it is called 'The Big Lie.' That's what she thinks, it's 'The Big Lie.' And it's not gendered. And I'm like, how could you argue with her? Who has more experience than the woman that set up the domestic violence industry itself?

So, she was like, 'it's not gendered, it's cyclical, reciprocal and generational. It's very complex.' And further, 'I need to set up a refuge for men.' And Erin went from being a national hero, saving thousands of lives of women and girls all over the UK, to being seen as like this horrible, misogynistic woman, which she's not. And she was exposed to death threats, harassment, picketing.

That's mind blowing. I didn't know that.

Yeah, honestly, Erin's story is very, very special.

You're in good company, I think. The experts are on my side, of this discussion, of non-gendered violence. Not just Erin, but there's so many amazing researchers that have substantiated the fact that men are abused in numbers more or less equal to women, and we've ignored them. We just don't care. Doesn't matter how prestigious, how many papers, or studies they provide, how many refuges they open, we don't want to hear it, because it's not popular.

But that is changing, but not changing fast enough.

“There are as many violent women as men, but there’s a lot of money in hating men, particularly in the United States – millions of dollars. It isn’t a politically good idea to threaten the huge budgets for women’s refuges by saying that some of the women who go into them aren’t total victims.” -- Erin Pizzey, Founder of the world's first women's refuge.

‘It’s a world made by men, for the benefit of men.’

The patriarchy, male privilege, gender oppression… again and again, we are beaten over the head with dogmatic, absolutist, and terrifying catch phrases, each to be accepted without question.

You see, when it comes to political and structural advantage, men have it all, and women have none.

But do such theories make sense in modern society?

Why, if our male privilege is so sweet, do so many thousands of men end their lives in such tragic stories of suicide?

Why, if our society is so patriarchal, does it ignore the countless and increasingly urgent issues that devastate men and boys?

And why, if this society is designed for my advantage, no less as a straight white man, then why in the build-up to a General Election is there not one policy designed for men and boys?

I don’t understand.

And if the world hates and neglects women so much, why do our major political parties line up to offer them a plethora of well-meaning policies, showering them with taxpayer money, and words of support, compassion, and kindness?

The political agendas are out, outlining the next generation of political change, and ambition, and it’s chock full of ‘women and girls’ being a national priority.

Meanwhile any question about the other half of society, to rightfully ask ‘what about men and boys?’, will only draw sneers and squeals, eye rolls, and violence, ‘this isn’t about you’, they snap back.

Yes.

We know that already. That’s the point.

It never is.

It never is about boys falling behind and out of education.

It never is about the homeless men left to die on the street.

It never is about the millions of male victims of abuse with nowhere to go.

Those who say, ‘this isn’t about you’, have yet to realise they have missed the point entirely, whilst simultaneously impaling themselves upon it.

We know.

This isn’t about us, and it never is.

So, who, in another full house of political neglect, betrayal and failure, are you going to vote for?

Hospital admissions for self-harm are up by two thirds amongst girls. This particular statistic caused so many headlines in various newspapers, with people writing think pieces about why girls were peculiarly afflicted with mental health issues.

But in fact, the evidence shows, and this is widely acknowledged by psychologists, that boys are more likely to self-harm in atypical ways. Boys are more likely to get into fights that they know they can't win. They're more likely to, for example, punch a wall or an inanimate object. And there's even some discussion as to whether carrying a knife in some circumstances could be classified as a form of self-harm. Obviously, that depends on intention.

But if those boys are injured to the extent that they require hospitalisation, that wouldn't be logged as an incident of self-harm because we associate self-harm with things like cutting and self-poisoning, which boys and men are, generally speaking, less likely to do.

Male violence, and violent men and boys, continues to be distorted through an antiquated, ideological lens, that fails to see what violence is, and where it comes from.

Once again, we lean into the same cartoonish, childlike, and conspiratorial interpretations of such behaviour.

It’s ‘the patriarchy incarnate’, or ‘male oppression made real’ you might hear, or ‘if he punches a wall, then he will surely punch you!’

Such asinine observations wouldn’t look out of place scrawled across the back pages of a teenager’s pop-psychology textbook; but are an unwelcome guest in the realm of grown-up discussion.

Frustratingly, the problematic behaviour of women and girls is rightly seen as the product of their environment and traumatic experiences…

Yet the cause of these same behaviours by males, are seen as internalised within men and boys themselves, and a product of so called “toxic” masculinity.

Meaning - when a woman has a problem we say, ‘we must fix society’, which is correct.

But when a man has a problem, we shake our heads and mutter ‘men must fix themselves’…

This is a fundamentally unbalanced, dishonest, and sexist approach to understanding male and female behaviour.

And such a lack of care, interest, or good faith within the study of male psychology, leads to glaring blind spots within mental health support, diagnosis, and policy, that hurts everyone.

We see it within the issue of self-harm, which remains a growing epidemic within young women and girls, hitting the headlines in recent years, as hospital admissions of girls increased exponentially.

Such headlines and data, make self-harm an issue heavily influenced by the female sex.

But is it that simple?

What if men and boys self-harm in atypical ways, outside of our traditional view?

That man punching a wall, or getting into unwinnable fights… could that be an act of self-harm?

What about men who have fantasies of violence; is it time we asked where such fantasies came from, rather than brandishing them as “toxic” too?

And are such men and boys most dangerous to others, or themselves?

Q: What are the significant contributing factors to why suicide is such a prevalent problem for men?

A: Research is showing us that men who are suicidal don’t consider themselves having a "mental health problem." They have a problem that's out there, external. It will be things like debt, or joblessness, or experiences of abuse, experiences of childhood trauma, or bullying in school.

One in five suicides in the UK, of men, is linked to relationship breakdown, and child custody battles. A huge cohort of men fighting a losing battle against a sexist family court system, and a lot of them turn to suicide. They're not "mentally unwell." They've just lost their child. And in fact, they're responding in a way that actually makes a lot of sense. So, I’d say in general, we need to stop seeing suicide as an irrational decision, based on some sort of mental health problem, and start to understand suicide as a rational solution-based outcome, for many men, who are trying to solve a problem of which they can’t control, and they've got no choices left.

Susie and I described male suicide a bit like, a pot of water on a stove, and it's bubbling up, and it's about to pop off. That man talking is equivalent to taking the lid off that saucepan. You're taking the lid off, you're allowing it to breathe. You're allowing it to settle down. And talking, taking that lid off off, does help. It helps deal with the problem itself, but I don’t know if it solves the problem. We need to work out what is that, the thing that's creating that heat? Is it a man in debt? Is it a man losing his job? Is it a man losing his child? Is it some sort of relationship breakdown?

11% of men who are being abused, will attempt suicide. That is a massive problem. If one of those men goes to a talk group, and tells the people there, "I’m being abused... there’s nowhere for me to go. There are no shelters. I call up the abuse helpline... they think I'ma predator." If that charity listening to that man, doesn’t then go onto advocate for greater support for male victims of abuse; more shelters, more funding, a fundamental change in the way in which police handle abuse. Then that charity is not doing enough, in my opinion. Charities need to "talk" themselves, they're the ones that need to "talk," and actually do something about the problems that men are telling them about.

The vast majority of men who die by suicide do actually talk, and have actually sought help, but the help they got was not adequate, and it failed them, and they still died by suicide. So this meme of "men can talk," as some sort of silver bullet to suicide. It's just not good enough.

It highlights a very important generalised difference in how we look at women's and men’s issues. For women’s, for example, we say, "the problem is out there in society... we need to change society." For men’s issues, we only ever say, "he needs to change himself."

As well, we need to let men speak about what they want to speak about. So often men do talk, and we don't like what they've got to say, and we tell them to "shut up." So then we've got these two co-existing strands, one side is telling men "to talk," and the other is telling men to "shut up." And overall, we can all do better. And we have to do better.

And recognise male suicide is a massive, societal, epidemic problem, that we all need to help solve, and not just throw it at the feet of men. And until we start seeing men in the same way as women, the victim of issues that they are not fully in control of, then I don’t know what we can really do for male suicide.

It’s men’s mental health month, and as much as it’s important to raise awareness around #mentalhealth, and the importance of discussing it without stigma, it is also a time to speak about what mental health is not.

And no…’mental health’ is not the best lens through which to view and understand the epidemic of male suicide, which remains the leading cause of death in men below the age of 50.

No doubt in the week before this, and in the weeks to come, #mensmentalhealthmonth will be marked with many well-meaning calls, and kind words, to reduce male suicide.

Many will share numbers to call, a plea to ‘talk’, or offer a listening ear; but what few will speak of, is how most suicidal men don’t even conceptualise the problem they have as a ‘mental heath problem’, at all.

In fact, most of these men are of sound mind, viewing suicide as a rational and solution-based outcome, to ‘solve’ a problem they can no longer bear.

These men will point to debt, or joblessness, some kind of relationship breakdown, experiences of bullying, or abuse, sexual trauma, physical disability, loneliness, child custody breakdown…

And when it comes to such issues, each of which can lead directly to suicide, it is not men who refuse to talk, but society.

We refuse to talk about such issues men face, or even deny their existence entirely.

It’s a strange time to be an advocate fighting male suicide, because so many people claim to care, but when it comes to having the difficult, ugly discussions around the very things that cause male suicide, the room suddenly empties and the kindness evaporates.

The simple fact is, that male suicide has been in the limelight for years now; the campaigns have run, the money has been spent, and the problem is no better.

Something is not working.

Yes.

We are right to ask for “talk”, but not just words from the men needing our help, but “talk” from everybody else too.

So why are men doing this?

Are suicide interventions working?

And have we gotten our view of men’s issues, and male suicide, all wrong?

The right to bodily integrity, like all human rights, is non negotiable.

It cannot be applied just in-part, or in some areas, or to only certain members of society.

It cannot be superseded by any religious faith, nor by the wish of a parent, women’s preferences, or by cultural expectations.

The right to one’s body, belongs to the individual.

No “ifs” or “buts”, no asterisks, and no compromises.

Much of the modern world has come to understand this when it comes to girls’ bodies, as FGM continues to be criminalised and rightly punished, falling out of favour, and slowly into the history books.

In most countries FGM is universally illegal, no matter the extent, or context.

Even just a prick is forbidden, because really, the extent of violation needn’t matter, if that procedure is being done on an unconsenting baby.

But not for boy babies.

And I don’t care what people say about circumcision’s so-called “medical or hygienic benefits”, because the medical benefits are virtually non-existent, and we don’t cut off body parts to avoid cleaning them.

Do we cut off our head to stop us getting dandruff?

What about lopping off our feet to rid the world of athletes’ foot?

I mean, why not go the whole way, and cut off the whole penis, if you’re not a fan of cleaning it?

The fact is, there are very few good enough reasons to remove half the nerve endings of a baby boy’s penis, as well as its most sensitive parts.

There is no reason to subject a boy to the risk of erectile dysfunction, desensitisation, PTSD, sexually transmitted disease, or even death…

No reason to tie a baby boy’s limbs down, and as he screams, slice away at his penis, without anaesthesia.

Nobody’s first few days of life should be welcomed by that, and no journey of parenthood should begin with child abuse.

So when will we treat circumcision with the same universality as FGM, where we say “no”, regardless of the severity, scale, or context?

When will a boys bodily integrity supersede religious faith?

When will we give our boys the same rights as girls?

When will we ban infant male circumcision?

Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

A major discussion at the very centre of the gender debate, asks: why are men and women different?

Are they different because we tell them to be different? Through toys in childhood, TV in adolescence, and a continual bombardment of gender norms from society, our media, our family, our friends, from everyone.

Is our gender shaped through society, through ‘social constructivsm’?

Alternatively -

Are our gender preferences innate?

Are we born masculine or feminine; born with our gendered thinking, like we are born with our sexuality?

Are the preferences, behaviours and temperaments of men and women, part of our biology? And if so, are they immutable?

So many questions.

Well, a new study from 2018 has reopened the debate.

Showing that the more equal and wealthy a society, the more men and women grow apart in their behaviour.

That’s right.

The wealthier and more equal the country, the *more* its men engage in risk taking behaviour, and the more altruistic its women become, for example.

It’s an annoying spanner in the works for the social constructivists, and feminists, who insist we are all the same blank slates – and are simply brainwashed, or coloured in, by society. But are we?

Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality - PubMed

Preferences concerning time, risk, and social interactions systematically shape human behavior and contribute to differential economic and s

PubMed

Preferences concerning time, risk, and social interactions systematically shape human behavior and contribute to differential economic and social outcomes between women and men. We present a global investigation of gender differences in six fundamental preferences. Our data consist of measures of willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust for 80,000 individuals in 76 representative country samples. Gender differences in preferences were positively related to economic development and gender equality. This finding suggests that greater availability of and gender-equal access to material and social resources favor the manifestation of gender-differentiated preferences across countries.

Personality and gender differences in global perspective - PubMed

Men's and women's personalities appear to differ in several respects. Social role theories of development assume gender differences result p

PubMed

Men's and women's personalities appear to differ in several respects. Social role theories of development assume gender differences result primarily from perceived gender roles, gender socialization and sociostructural power differentials. As a consequence, social role theorists expect gender differences in personality to be smaller in cultures with more gender egalitarianism. Several large cross-cultural studies have generated sufficient data for evaluating these global personality predictions. Empirically, evidence suggests gender differences in most aspects of personality-Big Five traits, Dark Triad traits, self-esteem, subjective well-being, depression and values-are conspicuously larger in cultures with more egalitarian gender roles, gender socialization and sociopolitical gender equity. Similar patterns are evident when examining objectively measured attributes such as tested cognitive abilities and physical traits such as height and blood pressure. Social role theory appears inadequate for explaining some of the observed cultural variations in men's and women's personalities. Evolutionary theories regarding ecologically-evoked gender differences are described that may prove more useful in explaining global variation in human personality.

Sex differences in personality traits and gender-related occupational preferences across 53 nations: testing evolutionary and social-environ

Using data from over 200,000 participants from 53 nations, I examined the cross-cultural consistency of sex differences for four traits: ext

PubMed

Using data from over 200,000 participants from 53 nations, I examined the cross-cultural consistency of sex differences for four traits: extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and male-versus-female-typical occupational preferences. Across nations, men and women differed significantly on all four traits (mean ds = -.15, -.56, -.41, and 1.40, respectively, with negative values indicating women scoring higher). The strongest evidence for sex differences in SDs was for extraversion (women more variable) and for agreeableness (men more variable). United Nations indices of gender equality and economic development were associated with larger sex differences in agreeableness, but not with sex differences in other traits. Gender equality and economic development were negatively associated with mean national levels of neuroticism, suggesting that economic stress was associated with higher neuroticism. Regression analyses explored the power of sex, gender equality, and their interaction to predict men's and women's 106 national trait means for each of the four traits. Only sex predicted means for all four traits, and sex predicted trait means much more strongly than did gender equality or the interaction between sex and gender equality. These results suggest that biological factors may contribute to sex differences in personality and that culture plays a negligible to small role in moderating sex differences in personality.

Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures - PubMed

Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which

PubMed

Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (N = 17,637). On responses to the Big Five Inventory, women reported higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than did men across most nations. These findings converge with previous studies in which different Big Five measures and more limited samples of nations were used. Overall, higher levels of human development--including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth--were the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality. Changes in men's personality traits appeared to be the primary cause of sex difference variation across cultures. It is proposed that heightened levels of sexual dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to naturally diverge in developed nations. In less fortunate social and economic conditions, innate personality differences between men and women may be attenuated.

Sex differences in adolescents’ occupational aspirations: Variations across time and place

We investigated sex differences in 473,260 adolescents’ aspirations to work in things-oriented (e.g., mechanic), people-oriented (e.g., nurs

PubMed Central (PMC)

We investigated sex differences in 473,260 adolescents’ aspirations to work in things-oriented (e.g., mechanic), people-oriented (e.g., nurse), and STEM (e.g., mathematician) careers across 80 countries and economic regions using the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). We analyzed student career aspirations in combination with student achievement in mathematics, reading, and science, as well as parental occupations and family wealth. In each country and region, more boys than girls aspired to a things-oriented or STEM occupation and more girls than boys to a people-oriented occupation. These sex differences were larger in countries with a higher level of women’s empowerment. We explain this counter-intuitive finding through the indirect effect of wealth. Women’s empowerment is associated with relatively high levels of national wealth and this wealth allows more students to aspire to occupations they are intrinsically interested in. Implications for better understanding the sources of sex differences in career aspirations and associated policy are discussed.

• Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18452921/
• Toy story: Why do monkey and human males prefer trucks?: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755553/
• Young female chimpanzees treat sticks as dolls: Growing evidence of biological basis for gender-specific play in humans: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101220121109.htm
• Sex differences in response to children's toys in nonhuman primates: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513802001071?via%3Dihub

Given that humans are sexually dimorphic and exhibit many of the typical sex-linked behavioral traits that any objective observer would predict, based on the mammalian trends, the claim that our behavioral differences have arisen purely via socialization is dubious at best. For that to be true, we would have to posit that the selective forces for these traits inexplicably and uniquely vanished in just our lineage, leading to the elimination of these traits without any vestiges of their past, only to have these traits fully recapitulated in the present due to socialization. Of course, the more evidenced and straightforward explanation is that we exhibit these classic sex-linked behavioral traits because we inherited them from our closest primate ancestors.

Beneath the surface of male suicide lies a murky world of icy darkness, and the shards of hidden trauma.

Like an iceberg – we limit men’s issues to what we can see, that icy white cap, and never look for what lies below.

Beneath the calm, demure surface, often hides stories of the abused men, or bullied boys, tales of trauma, or neglect, and sexual violence; the life of the addicted, the lonely, or those fighting a losing battle for child custody…

Stories we ignore and wave away as not possible, or as insignificant, or arrogantly berate as ‘hijacking the conversation’.

And so the secret epidemic, unnoticed, drifts closer and closer still, until it crashes into the side of our boat, making real what we chose to ignore, to devastating consequences.

We care then.

When the sun loungers and beach towels of society are disturbed, and the water rushes in, we scrabble around in a panic…

We treat the issue too late.

The cause of a man’s suicide has taken its toll, and any chance to prevent or change course, to sail for safer waters, has long since gone.

Because suicide is not a distinct issue, but the end destination of various other issues when the volume is turned up to ten, and all hope has gone.

It is, a ‘rational and solution based decision’, as is coldly described by the latest research.

It is not something to be pathologised and medicated as ‘abnormal’’, seen primarily as a ‘mental health problem’, or part of a ‘toxic’ male mindset that needs to be talked away.

And such perspectives have clearly failed us.

Failed because research often finds that suicidal men don’t consider their problem as being a ‘mental health problem’, as they are left to grapple with what lays beneath the surface.

And I know…

It’s easier to acknowledge only what we can see, to throw the burden of responsibility back upon men, but as with icebergs; we need to peer deeper, and further into the distance, to understand, before it’s too late.

So how far can you see, and how deep dare you look?

Has the emotional and psychological abuse of men been normalised?

Do we even acknowledge it exists?

I mean a cursory Google search of ‘domestic abuse’, or ‘coercive control’ will probably answer the question for you.

So as the spotlight of domestic violence advocacy continues to shine down on women, what happens to the forgotten men who experience the same?

Well, in many places, it has been coopted by sassy man hating journalists, providing its readers with ‘top five’ ways to manipulate men, or to get them to ‘do what you want.’

I ask, would we accept such articles written to help men manipulate women?

Why does society limit men’s problems to internalised issues, to be solved by a mere change of male mindset?

Do we honestly think tears, talk and de-toxification will somehow solve the systemic problems that shape men’s distress?

Will they miraculously fix the epidemic of men’s deteriorating physical and mental health, and are these things really a substitute for the infrastructural change we so desperately need?

Let’s be real.

Society has opened its eyes and ears to the fact that the health and wellbeing of women is shaped by a complex web of intersected socio-economic issues.

And yet for men, well, their problems are self-inflicted, caused by their own poor choices and shitty attitude, for which they only have themselves to blame.

“Be less toxic, cry more, open up a little and men will be just fine!“

We don’t do this for anyone else.

When women face a problem, we rightly ask: ‘what can we do to change society?’

But when men face a problem, we only ask: ‘what can men do to change themselves?’

It makes no sense.

So, let’s take a look at how we advocate for men’s health, both physically and mentally, and see how (despite its good intentions) it often fails to address the root causes of the problem.

Men’s Health: Beyond Masculinity

PubMed Central (PMC)

The health of men is a glaring omission from the 2016 US presidential campaign conversations. Candidates have discussed the health of veterans, the safe guarding of Medicare, children’s and women’s health, and the repealing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) or ObamaCare. But for the two thirds of men who are not veterans or aged 65 years or older, the campaign trail appears silent regarding their health and health care.

The situation is sobering. When comparing the life expectancy at birth of males in the United States to that of males in 21 other highly developed countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom), males in the US have trailed for more than three decades with the lowest life expectancy. Compared with women, men are three times more likely not to have had a contact with a health care provider for five years, more than twice as likely to have never had contact with a health care provider, and more likely to be uninsured. The gender gaps in life expectancy, premature mortality rates, and use of preventive health care services are persistent and well established, with men faring worse than women on all of these metrics.

The disproportionate burden of disease morbidity and mortality shouldered by men has been supported by the epidemiological and health services literature for decades. However, the unique determinants or patterns of diseases among males across the life course have garnered relatively little policy attention, at least in part because of how we explain men’s health outcomes. The policies and programs to improve men’s health have located the problem as masculinity. Blaming masculinity consists in explaining men’s poorer health and shorter life expectancy than women as the result of psychological traits such as men’s adherence to unhealthy beliefs and norms. For example, the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has had several programs aimed at encouraging men to go to the doctor for preventive screenings and routine treatment such as “Real men wear gowns.” Perhaps they have had no more poignant slogan for a men’s health campaign than the ad from a few years ago that asserted that “This year thousands of men will die from stubbornness.” Rather than highlighting differential rates of unemployment, gender differences in patterns of care over the life course, or the limited infrastructure of men’s health programs and services, these and other efforts have suggested the problem is in men’s heads. We have embraced the notion that the health of women and children is shaped by social, economic, and environmental determinants of health, but even male policymakers tend to endorse and create policies that presume that men’s health is largely a result of men’s poor choices and unhealthy behaviors.

An increasingly common way that high rates of male suicide are understood is via men’s ostensibly poorer abilities to talk about – and more generally seek help for – problems in general, and emotional problems specifically. This has led to the development of public mental health campaigns which urge men to ‘speak up’ more often about the problems they face. I argue that both the initial claim, and the enactment of this claim in public mental health campaigns, is problematic, resting on simplistic assumptions about men and gender difference, and serving to detract attention from structural drivers of suicide. Drawing on a narrative analysis of in-depth interviews with ten men who had self-harmed, thought about, or attempted suicide, this paper focuses attention on the content and contexts of ‘talk’. I argue that public health campaigns promoting ‘talk’ in response to male suicide neglect the interpersonal and structural contexts in which talk occurs, including considerations of power and structural inequalities.

One’s control over one’s own body is one of the most fundamental rights a person can have.

Autonomy over their body. Autonomy over their actions. Autonomy over the choice of when, or if, they have a child.

There are important conversations to be had around how or when a man should be able to exercise such choices.

Should a man be legally compelled to finance a child he never wanted?

Should a man be able to opt out of parenthood post-conception?

These are difficult questions to answer and require time to discuss and better understand.

But what doesn’t require any further discussion, is what happens if a woman uses a man’s sperm to impregnate herself, without his knowledge, and against his will?

Such a thing must surely be illegal, and yet, in most states, and many cases, it is not.

And yes, you may well be reaching for the “well that is extremely rare” reaction, when you hear about such a situation…

Until you find out that one in ten American men have had a partner try to get themselves pregnant, when they did not want them too.

And that is terrifying.

Slowly the world is catching up in protecting women from these kind of malevolent actions, ‘stealthing’ for example, which is the removal of a condom without permission, is widely being made illegal, as it should be.

But what about a product that allows a woman to fish a used condom out of a bin, and use the contents to impregnate herself?

Well, that is not illegal, and certainly should be.

So, let’s take a look at a product and a set of adverts I wish didn’t exist, but sadly do…

Let me show you, ‘The Impregnator’…

No equality movement should be based on denying reality and the painful experiences of another.

And yet we’ve seen it time and time again from feminist voices in certain feminist spaces; minimising, or flat out denying the existence of male survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

Katherine Spiller, Editor of Ms magazine, said domestic violence is just a ‘clean-up word for wife-beating, because that's really what it is.’

And Dr Mary Koss, one of the most influential researchers in sexual violence in America, stated it is ‘inappropriate’ to see men as survivors of rape.

Both are untrue, but also, how is this *women’s* rights?

Why is feminism not just about child brides, FGM, reproductive autonomy or educating girls in Africa?

If it were, I’d sign up today.

Why is it so often about denying the trauma of men and boys, muddling the data and manipulating the narrative?

This is not advocacy.

And it’s disappointing to see Spiller and Dr Koss, and the many, many others, not being reminded of such.

Because these are not just words of bigotry, they have been highly effective in influencing our policies and laws to exclude male survivors rape from data collection, to deny them refuge in shelters and exclude them from domestic violence strategies and interventions.

So when will the beady eye of accountability be turned inward, on itself?

When will the ideological dogma be reined in and reinvented, to remind us all of where and why feminism began?

When will we see change?

The biggest study ever on the pay gap, I think it was done by Harvard, basically looked at Uber drivers in America. The big reason it's the biggest is because they had so much data. Uber obviously has so much data, and men and women both drive Ubers in America.

They looked at the paying and they were like, "well, women are getting paid less at Uber. How does that make sense? Because it's obviously all automated." What a great way of studying the male and female behavior to work out what is in this gap.

And there's three things in the gap.

The first was men drove at different times at night. Some men would do the graveyard shifts, early mornings where you get paid more. They would want to do that. Women less so.

Second was that men were more likely to stick with the platform for longer, so they had more experiences, and they benefit from that experience. Makes sense of any job.

And the third reason, which is 50% of the gap, was that men just drive faster.

Just drive a little faster, guys, then you'll close that gap.

That's so funny.

That shows that it wasn't discrimination that's causing the pay gap in Uber. It was just...

Heavy right foot.

Different types of behavior. And I guess we can have a discussion of what shapes that behavior, but we need to start that conversation with it's not discrimination, at least in Uber, it's different types of behavior.

A new type of cybercrime, primarily targeting teenage boys, is sweeping across the social mediaverse, and has already silently claimed dozens of lives.

‘Sextortion’ is a new type of cybercrime that uses fake profiles to lure a target into sending explicit photos of themselves, and then uses these photos, alongside threats, to blackmail and extort money from the victim.

It is not about the sexual gratification of the predator, nor are these the actions of disgruntled former partners. This is purely about money, and getting as much of it from the target as possible.

Worse, unlike other types of cyber crime, where other demographics are targeted; sextortion does not need a long runway for the scammer to build trust, it can take hours, or even minutes, to get what they want.

So what makes teen boys uniquely vulnerable?

Well, boys have not been subject to the same awareness campaigns as girls, who are taught to be mindful of what they send, and to whom. Instead, boys’ fast and loose approach to sending explicit photos of their body, and the unique shame they feel when exposed, is what makes them an easy and lucrative target.

So who will speak to, educate and protect our boys?

How many more lives will have to be devastated, and lost, before we take the same meaningful action taken to help girls, to support boys too?

Is it time we talked about sextortion?

Is it time we protected our boys?

What do you think?

Sextortion Scams Are Driving Teen Boys to Suicide

archive.ph

Thousands of teen boys are being extorted in sexting scams - The Wash…

archive.ph