A rehash of the perennial leftie social theory identifying "disadvantage" and "inequality" (whatever they actually mean) as the cause of all social ills.

Not only is this flat out wrong but an examination of simple and obvious facts show that this could not be the case.

I suggest strongly to the author that he has an OBJECTIVE not ideological look at the problem of suicide. Twisting all social and psychological problems to fit your particular political leanings may be gratifying to oneself but does nothing to further intelligent debate.

..."Resile" is a word that springs to mind. Abbott sees in the "Gay Front", a self seeking political interest group which is overly-represented.

...The "Gay problem" is a medical phenomenon and should be restricted to that specialty for treatment and counselling as clients.

A very caring and insightful article about how hard it is to be born gay, and grow into a confident, valued member of society.

The author is right to be worried about the continued suicides of gay people not being helped by a new conservative government...especially one headed by an ex-student priest.

Diver Dan shows his continued ignorance about homosexuality by dragging up the ancient belief that anyone could ever 'cure' gay people.

I, and many others, have personally known really young children, who were too young to even know what being gay was, who we knew were gay right from the start.

My best friend's son announced he was gay at 19 to his shocked, very religious family with a homophobic father.
No one else was shocked...

People are born gay Diver Dan
Who on earth would choose to live the gay lifestyle, or have gay sex, if they were really attracted to the opposite sex?

It is because of people like you that young, confused gay people have such a hard time adjusting to their reality.

OK Atman. Are you seriously suggesting that any social phenomenon can be seen through a non-ideological lens? If so please put up up or shut up. I'd be fascinated to hear your perspective on the 'objective not ideological' explanation for the problem of suicide please?

The more society promote the permissive and homosexual lifestyle the greater the suicide rate is. Most that I know practicing homosexuality were previously in hetrosexual relationship. Susie pushes her usual dogmas. I doubt whether the suicide rate changes between conservative and incompetent Governments. This article is more pushing a political line. I suggest unemployment which under Labour debt, is inevitable has a far greater affect on suicide rates than ones support of 'gay ' marriage. Men and women lose a sense of self worth when they can't provide for families. The other way to prevent suicide is to teach kids a few morals and the perils mutliple relationships which leave them used and feeling dirty despite secular dogma. No amount of dogma can wipe away a person's conscience no matter how the social engineers try. The vast majority of prison suicide deaths are a result of broken relationships.

Would the risk of suicide of gays ever come within cooee of the risk of AIDS for instance?

Suseonline would know, she is OLO's expert on gays.

Homosexuality is fully protected by law. Any even slight perception of discrimination no matter how unlikely receives enormous publicity.

Homosexuality is over-exposed. Doubtless only the activists who crave attention would say otherwise.

What is more likely is that the causes that lead to Australia's high ranking world-wide for male suicide apply the same for all males regardless of their sexuality. What are those factors and what can be done about them?

>>What is more likely is that the causes that lead to Australia's high ranking world-wide for male suicide apply the same for all males regardless of their sexuality.<<

Where are you getting these stats from? Wikipedia has Australia 50th on a list of 110 - not low but not high either. The interesting one is Greenland at the top of the list - Greenlanders commit suicide at a staggering rate. What's up with that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Those figures are overall suicide rates. Male suicide rates will be higher than the listed figure for any given country because men are more likely to commit suicide than women. This is not a uniquely Australian phenomenon; it applies in virtually every country on Earth although Western nations seem to display a bigger gender gap than developing nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_suicide

Cheers,

Tony

Homosexuality is over-exposed.
onthebeach,
Not only is it over-exposed it is even more scary that it is extremely promoted.
The suicide starting gun hasn't been fired yet.

Suse touched on it, & I'm sure Rob promotes the idea that homosexuality is passed on genetically. This is one thing I have thought on, & came to the conclusion it is garbage.

If it was genetic, those carrying the gene would not have been able to breed before we started helping them with invitro fertilization. In this case the tendency should have been eliminated thousands of years ago, by natural selection.

If being queer is such a heavy cross to bear I can see no reason not to let nature to take it's natural course, & the Darwin principal be allowed to apply. About the only people who gain anything by stopping these people carry out their intentions are those like Rob, who appear to get their kicks from interfering in the lives of others.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if these people could find something useful & productive to do.

It is unusual in most forums dedicated to public opinion to find a suggestion that suicide is the best outcome for those who find life difficult to live. User “Hasbeen”, for example, makes the point that if non-heterosexuality is too heavy a burden, suicide is the best outcome, and people such as myself should stop interfering.

By suggesting that suicide prevention and intervention is “interference” and that researchers, youth workers, health professionals (etc. a very long list) are interfering by trying to prevent suicide is to ignore the importance of life as something which is both biological and social.

From the very beginning of each person’s life, that person—in all the diversity and strangeness that people are—is a part of society that defines and conditions each one of the rest of us. Each life is, or at least should be, sacred regardless of how far from some arbitrary norm that person’s behaviour or desire or aspiration will be. Certainly striving to see all life as valuable, sacred and worthy is a part of our contemporary culture (as much as we so often fail to recognise others as worthy lives).

Suicide does not emerge from within: it is not the outcome of being different or too lazy to aspire, or being just somehow wring-in-the-head. It is not, as “Diver Dan” implies, the result of needing to be cured from a sexual orientation that is figured here as some kind of disease or ailment.

Suicide is the result of life seeming to be unliveable and it is social conditions that routinely make that the case in many different ways for many different people. We often see the figures for completed suicide, but we need to remember the pain that many live through by being on the verge of suicide too.

//CONTINUED:
Suicide is the result of life seeming to be unliveable and it is social conditions that routinely make that the case in many different ways for many different people. We often see the figures for completed suicide, but we need to remember the pain that many live through by being on the verge of suicide too.

Some intervene (which is not the same as interfering) by providing mental health support directly to individuals. Others intervene by running programs that try to prevent those who may find life unliveable from taking their lives by developing communities of support.

Still others intervene by trying to educate the broader population about diversity, social issues, the importance of equality, the sacredness of life, or the ethical need to distribute resources and opportunities equally to ensure dignity as a way of helping to change circumstances so that life is more liveable for a greater number.

All of these activities are necessary in suicide prevention, and all of them are ethical obligations for a just society.

It pays, however, to remember that things which can trigger or exacerbate suicidality include thoughtless, off-hand comments that reinforce feelings of difference or inferiority. That includes many of the comments in this forum. It includes debates around government policy and the value placed on certain groups of people when government programmes are de-funded. It also includes the social values articulated by politicians, celebrities and others.

Care for life includes caring about the words we use, the ideas we spread and about an openness to difference and the need to think differently about how we make life liveable in equitable, caring and open-armed ways.

"Care for life includes caring about the words we use, the ideas we spread and about an openness to difference and the need to think differently about how we make life liveable in equitable, caring and open-armed ways"

Well said Rob! Thats why we need to continue to find ways to address the consequences of disadvantage and inequity on any affected individuals or groups of people in Australia today. If we look closely we might find that the people affected might be our brothers and sisters, our husbands, wives and children, our neighbours or other community members.

Working to change the social conditions that lead people towards contemplating suicide isn't about a 'right' versus 'left', gay versus anti-gay, religious-atheist discourse. That kind of thinking and associated 'name calling' just distracts from looking at what needs to happen to change those things about Australian society that make suicide look like a viable alternative to the pain of living. It also distracts from having a national discussion about what our social goals as a nation might be and who benefits from maintaining the status quo and not making the necessary social and economic changes.

These questions need to be asked and answered by all Australians who care!

we need to continue to find ways to address the consequences of disadvantage and inequity .Jandamarra,
I don't disagree with trying to find ways to solve all problems but unfortunately, as old problems get solved new ones pop up. Many problems aren't actually problems at all, they're mere idealistic interference lacking pragmatism. They're an artificial scenario for those who thrive on problems they impose on others..
You'll find that the majority of suiciders are actually very caring & decent people for whom our problem manufacturing society offers no membership opportunities.
Remember no people do as much harm as those who go about doing good.

Hasbeen I've not looked into the nature of the way the genetic aspects are supposed to be transferred but a couple of points stick out from a sideline perspective.

- Having a same sex orientation does not stop someone from reproducing by conventional means in situations where they try to live as heterosexuals. Given the strong pressure that so often on people to be "straight", get married and have kids a lot of people with same sex orientations have ended up in heterosexual relationships over a long time.
- Don't know about this instance but it's my understanding that some gene's can be carried but only become dominate when combined with other gene's. Both parents may carry and pass on part of the pattern but it only completes when the bit's combine. Probably phrased that badly but I hope the point makes sense.

R0bert

Rob hope you are still part of the discussion.

From the look I had at suicide stats there are bunch of factors that seem to rarely register in articles and discussion of suicide as points worthy of investigation. The suicide of same sex orientated teenagers is a horror but the majority of those who suicide are not same sex orientated teens. They are mostly adult males, they are most at risk in old age (85+) and the next greatest risk brackets are from about age 25 to early 50's. I don't have the experience to comment on the 85's risks.

We have touched on OLO before regarding the strong social messages to men that they are disposable. Hard to put that into a few words.

Having been a client of CSA and having had dealings with the family law system and it's support services I'm strongly of the view that the way those systems treat men is a likely significant factor in male suicide rates in that 25 to mid 50's age bracket.

Both can be ruthless and take from a man pretty much everything he values without him having done wrong. CSA can continue the sense of helplessness and abuse for a long period. I know some women get a very raw deal as well but do think the way that happens and the dynamics are very different.

I've seen no research that seems to look directly at those issues to try to determine the impact (especially without phrasing the question in a way that appears to undermine it).

R0bert

Two UK studies published this year have found strong correlations between government austerity measures and suicide rates since the GFC struck in 2008.

The studies found that countries that went down the austerity path – the US, UK, Ireland, Greece and Spain – have all reported sharp increases in suicide rates. In the UK alone, there has been an 8% rise in male suicides and 9% in female suicides since 2008, reversing a 20-year downward trend.

By contrast, Iceland and Sweden, which refused to apply austerity measures to health and social infrastructure spending (despite Iceland’s debt to GDP ratio rising to 800%), have experienced no increase in their suicide rates.

‘Recession blamed for 1000 British suicides’:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-business/uk-austerity/48495/recession-blamed-1000-british-suicides#ixzz2exgwE8Yq

‘Austerity is driving us to suicide, depression and causing soaring rates of drug use and HIV’:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2316624/Austerity-driving-suicide-depression-causing-soaring-rates-drug-use-HIV.html

‘Austerity has led to suicides,’ say Oxford researchers:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22345527

(A similar scenario occurred in Cuba in the early 1990s, when its economy collapsed after the fall of the Soviet Union. Instead of cutting back on health and social spending, the Cuban government launched a largely successful campaign to make the country self-sufficient in food. In the years that followed, the physical and mental health of the Cuban population actually improved.)

As an associate professor Rob Cover has made a fundamental error in logic.

His logic goes.

Coalition = increased inequality
Inequality = increased austerity
Austerity = increased suicide
=> Coalition = increased suicide.

Unfortunately for this equation, for the 11 years under Howard, the coefficient of inequality increased slightly, but the economy grew so fast that the lowest paid incomes increased faster than any equivalent period in Australian history, and notably the suicide rate also decreased.

So Dr Rob, I would suggest you take off your Rudd tinted glasses and produce some real work instead of political propaganda.

This will be a couple of posts, so bear with me.
As some may recall, I mentioned a few weeks ago that I’m thinking about the things that make us human, especially trying to fit them into EO Wilson’s ideas on eusociality. Humans are a quintessentially social species and I’m coming ever more strongly to the view that humanity has many hidden group-oriented drives that are epigenetically influenced. Other eusocial species do, so why not us? Some such species are so eusocial that a colony is effectively a single organism.
For example, ant queens don’t just lay eggs willy-nilly in a mature colony. They only produce enough to replace losses and if there is a very large set of losses, egg-production rapidly increases. When there are really good conditions, she lays a lot of extras that will become “winged ants” and go out to mate with ants from other colonies to establish new ones. Then she goes back to her previous pattern. In bad years she doesn’t produce fliers and the colony size may shrink because she doesn’t replace all the losses. She is a kind of computer that senses the population density and the food supply and balances her output accordingly. Other ants have their own basic programs that do similar types of things. Prof Rodney Brooks of MIT has worked on this for the last 30 years or more, using it to inform his work on artificial intelligence.
Perhaps humans can also be thought of as being part of a super-organism? The bible, famously, exhorts us to “go forth and multiply” and we have done that very successfully for the past 300,000 years. Perhaps we are really just very intelligent ants, with somewhat more complex algorithms driving us?
Where is this going, you ask? Well, as a species we are facing a prospect of hard times ahead. Fertility in functional societies is declining, even without birth control (but I reckon it will go up a little this year in Australia) although population is still increasing because fewer children die before adulthood. Our breeders’ control algorithm is working.
[cont]

So what does that have to do with the article?
A couple of things.
First, human reproduction isn’t a centralised activity and for it to have a high success rate there is a need for the mother and offspring to be supported. In most societies this is done by the father, and in stable societies there is about one man for every woman during the normal breeding ages, with a few extra men in the younger cohorts and a few extra women in the older ones. Generally, more young men are born, but they die off at a higher rate than young women and when they reach breeding age the ratio is about equal, and then they continue to die off more quickly, so that by the time the breeding window is closing, some women who used to have partners don’t any more. A society with an excess of young men of breeding age has, historically, been one which has become so mature that the risky activities have been made safe, with no external threats requiring young men to risk their lives defending. So the superorganism responds by sending out colonising parties, mostly of young men, with a small number of older ones and an even smaller number of women and so somke of the balance is maintained. Think of the British Empire as a modern example.
Second, in those mature societies with an excess of young men, there is often an increased acceptance of homosexuality. Once again, think of the British aristocracy, the Classical Athens, Imperial Rome, the Catholic clergy. Could this be another epigenetically-triggered evolutionary adaptation? In other words, are some individuals born with a genetic propensity to be gay that is triggered in the right environment? And as a corollary, is our modern Western society creating that environment? It seems entirely possible to me. It also seems possible that it is a perfectly reasonable adaptive response at a group level to remove some potential breeders from the population when there is population pressure and that homosexuality is a pretty effective way to do so.
[cont]

It may also be that suicide is a similar eusocially adaptive response, also triggered epigenetically in genetically susceptible individuals. I’ve been suicidal, even gone to the point of making arrangements, but didn’t carry through. Perhaps I don’t have a full set of the relevant genes, so the epigenetic triggers weren’t enough?
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that suicide is predominantly an activity of men of breeding age. Depressed women do it far less frequently and depressed older people don’t react to stressors in that way, although some do choose to take their final journey on their own terms rather than waiting for it. I suspect it derives from many of the same triggers discussed above – estrangement from family or lack of breeding opportunities, social “failure” in the terms of the culture, an excessively dense population. Suicide is almost unknown in primitive societies, such as hunter-gatherers, where everybody has a respected role to fill. Aboriginal men in remote communities are now killing themselves and their families at an enormous rate, because they simply don’t have any needful roles – sit-down money means they have no functional roles that fit their own evolutionary psychological needs and so they self-destruct. Their women are much less affected by it, except that they suffer because the men are and they experience the fall-out. Their own social roles are still largely as they always were.
The structures around family law and CS do the same. In modern society it’s even worse because the feminist social construction leaves people of both genders with no clear role. As a result, the family law becomes a stick that is taken up by people who have been made mentally ill because their innate drives are at odds with the social structures.
Each of these things is a form of pathological altruism, in which good intent produces really bad outcomes.
I think we need to reflect very much more deeply on our eusocial nature and stop trying to pretend that individualism is the aim of society. That’s precisely arse-backwards and not in a good way.