Cireena Simcox article, in a rambling search through the fields of blame, arrives at a conclusion for high rates of youth suicide (in particular males) in Australia, or , in her words, the “high rate at which we are killing off our young men”, points our attention to a combination, in her view, of many factors for the failure of youth to exit life in the allotted time, vis-à-vis: exploitation of our youth by the commercial sector (small business in particular was identified)?; (does that exclude McDonalds et al, I wondered )?

Can we now describe the transition of our youth through adolescence as a “conjugation”, for, at a point in the story, our dumbing down and selection of verbs describing suicide was under-scored. Those who had tried and failed in the vain attempt at analysis, were likened to fallen wooden-horse riders, unlikely to ever remount and sword-fight with windmills. And so to another Cireena Simcox conclusion; the doctrine of the hidden agenda. It now appears the categorizing of every violent and accidental death of our youth must be questioned. Was it suicide? We must now ask. Does it matter I ask!

But as many of our great writers are want to do, we are held in thrall till the last moment for the true gem. Could all the mayhem and premature death of our young males be the fault of their Fathers? To all the Dads out there please reconsider your glib remarks to your sons. No more the friendly call of “Mate” when requesting another beer from the fridge, since , if the endearment of the term does not inflict the inevitable death blow by his own hand, than you may turn him into a hopeless alcoholic.

Some unconfortable truths is a very catchy headline [that's most carefull not to include the topic ]as if we need to be tricked into reading it

Statistics can be said to be unrelyable , we talk of boys and men but it is well known they take obvious measures ,woman/girls use more subtil measures [like drug over dose , excess drinking , riskey life style ,even anorexia] in short statistics mean bukis.

But enough of seperattion ,what is this statistical suicide statistic revealing,
[perhaps the lack of suitable role models [homer simpson , and drunken sport 'stars taking drugs ,the daily dose of evil men getting caught for horrible crimes]
combined with a media that broadcasts hundreds of murders , cop shows , judge judy and big brother types and cooking shows is hardly the fare to give youth male role models that create strength in our young.

We wont even get into the retard a typical male featured in virtually every comercial, or the tough on drugs [deemed illegal] yet the pushing of booze/pills [that directly kills an average of 35 people per day in every major hospital, be it directly from booze or its affects or ahncilary like violence or road deaths.

The woman neatly fit into the adverse drug reaction TO PERSCRIBED MEDICATION [that in usa alone kills 5 jumbo jets [equivelent]each day]
and is responsable for one in 100 hospitalisations [with one in ten causing death],
we have a drug problem [LEGAL DRUGS]yet marijuana that has never killed anyone is vilified at a rate of one percent of the population each year
[a victimless crime] but the favoured villan for media pedling legal booze in its retarded male role model that is usually featured via dumbing down males as a role model
its reaping the harvest according as the media has deliberatly sown.

Excellent article Cireena. And timely.

As the mother of 2 young men I'm very, very interested in the mental well being of men.

That there is such a large number of male suicides, and also high risk self destructive behaviour, suggests a deep sense of personal failure and deep sense of isolation/alienation from society.

Girls now have options, many many avenues are open in making life style and career choices with it impacting only occasionally on their sense of and pride in womanhood.

For boys on the other hand there is still an outdated and restrictive attitude to what it means to be a successful man. From both men and women I might add.

There is such a fear of homosexuality that it can be hard for boys to admit that they prefer English to Rugby, academic achievement to sporting prowess. There is almost this constant need to proof: 'I'm straight'.

It is difficult for 'straight' boys who do not fit in the proscribed male role and is tragic for boys who are homosexual. The message is clear, if you are not a particular kind of bloke you are suspect. The friends you have are probably also the 'outcasts' with whom you only have that in common.

Until recently, it was automatically assumed that a man who did Nursing for instance MUST be gay. If he had a heterosexual relationship, it was only because he was the only one who didn't now it yet. The man was not judged on his capabilities as a nurse, but on his possible sexuality, as if that was of any relevance.

A 50+ man I know, who has enormous difficulties with alcoholism etc, who is a lawyer once confessed to me that what he really had wanted to do was hairdressing. He loved the creative aspect etc. That was absolutely out of the question of course.

That is so sad, a life wasted, lived not to become who you are, but what parents and social environment deemed was appropriate.

Hello Cireena,

I read your article and was left looking askance. I have pondered your thoughts for a few days. I am bound to say you raise some interesting points and I wish to discuss alternative assertions.

I have found I need nearly 1200 words so will spread this over three or four posts.

Your proposal is that the rise of feminism has resulted in positive impacts on men and on society.

'The logical conclusion therefore is that, to varying degrees but with absolute certainty, these changes have impacted upon the other half of society.'

I absolutely agree, but … here are some alternative thoughts.

Firstly I must point out that for many generations Australian men have coped and coped very well with change, especially with the changes of the 60's, 70's and much of the 80's. If we see male youth suicide rates as a measure then seemingly the youngsters of those times have handled the changes in the roles, attitudes and expectations quite well. I see men of those generations as have becoming used to those changes in ideas and attitudes. Most are accepting. I think we'd agree there, although with the rider we'd have to say that there was a fair struggle initially.

Now as you say women have coped with the stresses of those changed conditions and today face the ongoing challenges men have faced for generations … just as well as the men. I agree.

I agree the rising suicide rates appear restricted to a particular male age band i.e. youth from the mid eighties to early nineties.

It is of concern to me that you regard men addressing their sons as mate as a problem. That's been going on for generations ... have a read of the both the Lawsons, Louisa and Henry, Barbara Baynton and Banjo Paterson, to see my point. I'd have to disagree that has a negative impact on youngsters. And as an aside have a look at 'Out Where the Dead Men Lie' by Barcroft Boake for an indication of why, mostly, young men killed themselves in that era.

I disagree risk taking activities leading to deaths should be included in suicide statistics. It's an issue I'd love to address in depth … but not here. I and many of my well adjusted non-suicidal mates have been taking risks for years and are still doing so in our 50's. True children of the 50's and 60's! My best mate just bought a Ducati. He's driving around the place like a half-wit. One bloke bought a yacht and sailed for 6 days solo half way up the East Coast of Australia without so much as a days sailing experience.

But that risk-taking is a very relevant point in how youngsters are being raised. Men used to be physical. Men used to take risks. It was the way we were. We excelled or failed and out of both we learned about ourselves and how to cope with success and failure and how to move on. We built our own expectations, became proud of our failures as well as our successes. Some of us still do these things although lately I've heard expressions of 'mid-age' crisis murmured in the background.

Now days the very idea of risk-taking draws scorn. I think you'd agree your article expresses that attitude also. An acceptable alternative, in many quarters, is sport, albeit sport that attempts to minimise physical risk-taking. Much sport these days is fake life.

Another idea you think important is the expectations we men put onto each other. Simply real men don't! They are too busy dealing with their own expectations. I believe young men (and older men) who haven't developed expectations for themselves will become muddled, lost and susceptible to self-harm in any of its forms. And the same probably applies to women.

I don't know who you mix with but the people I know mostly encourage all youngsters to develop and follow their dreams ... especially where some intellectual challenge or 'boundary challenge' is involved. Gender no longer enters the thinking equation. But I think many, including you, scorn and exclude any challenge that is merely physical or seemingly dangerous in nature.

Here is an observation; the difficulty of accepting suicide is in the “attitude of the beholder”. It is their personal refusal to accept the fact of suicide as legitimate death, an individual choice.

Frankly, I consider the content of this article to be an indication of a “soft head” The soft head of modern man (or woman as in this case). And to think that this rambling article was written by a journalist too, makes for concern.

Suicide is death, a medical fact, to be treated as such: For in this point is the dilemma of modern man. What difference how the body died? Starvation, murder, frost bite, heat exhaustion, war (now there is a good one) accidental, suicide et al . Its dead, gone, we move on, we get on with it.

Suicide, seen as a personal choice, makes an obscenity of the blame game. Analyse all you like, suicide is a different death; a deliberate death; a chosen death; a free choice death. Now, that is a good thing, not bad! Free choices available to modern man are in the decline, make the best of it.

Keep up your present good work,Keith.

As one going on 88, reckon Slim Dusty's Looking back and looking Forward is a good way us Aussies should look at life.

Just right now with China's thirst for our resources we have never been so lucky.

Just wonder, however, will it be as good for our great grandkids when our quarry economy runs out?

Cheers, BB - WA

Continued...

Women have challenged and changed many things, mostly for the better for all, but some things cannot be changed. Women in my view do seek security, and please don't misunderstand. I don't think they overwhelmingly seek security in relationships, marriage and children ... but they do seek the comfort of security in what ever form … more than do men. Men don't have such a great need. I am not judgemental for I too at times seek security but my overwhelming search is for challenge, be it intellectual, physical, emotional or just being 'out-there'. I think you'd agree that's an accurate and fundamental difference in our respective gender make up.

In the last 30 years society has become less daring and more concerned with making things 'safe'. That doesn't suit me or most of the men I know. I know it discourages all the things that make me a man. I'd have had real worries for myself if I'd been raised to believe 'safety first' and then suddenly been confronted with a world in which men, as a matter of course, take risks.

That would be really scary.

My mother never raised me like that. She made sure I was always appropriately challenged in as many ways as possible. She let me grow into the world she knew. She was well read and liberal minded but a mother first. She loved the circumstances of her marriage, home and family ... she luxuriated in its security, until her untimely death.

I think the changes women and attitudes have under-gone are great but I think along with those changes there has become an imbalance, which has been progressive. I believe that imbalance is in women's and especially mother's expectations, of how they are applied to their husbands, their husbands’ relationships with youngsters and finally to their male children.

I think that attitude is overly influencing in our laws and our society. I think it is no mere coincidence it has assumed increasing influence as the role and influence of women has increased in this public life.

I think the inconsistency between the ‘safety first’ attitude and the real life experiences of men is more of an influence on youth suicide. It is certainly more relevant than the commercial and political influences you assert.

And as for taking personal responsibility … well that’s something that really does need re-evaluation today. But I sense you’d agree with me when I say that finger pointing and blame absolutely destroys any sense of acceptance of responsibility for one’s own actions … and more especially so when suicide is involved.

Kieth – I see you have put a great deal of thought into this and apologise that I have simply not had the opportunity to reply until now.

First, let me say that issues such as the way young men are treated as an homogenous group and the mate thing were brought up time and time again by the guys with whom I have been dealing over the years.

I’ve stated elsewhere that I have been associated with mental health, youth suicide and support groups for years

. “I don’t want him to be my mate, I want him to be my Dad”, “My sister/s get Princess and Love and Sweetheart – all I’ve ever got from him is Mate” “I reckon he calls me mate because he can’t remember my real bloody name” “He calls everyone from the postman to total strangers Mate, - why can’t he treat me like I’m important?”….are a selection of typical comments.

Its good to know you and your friends are well adjusted, so, thank god, are the majority of men. However, its not the majority we are dealing with here - its those who haven’t, in your words, (and for a variety of reasons), “developed expectations for themselves”. As you so rightly say, these are the ones who “ will become muddled, lost and susceptible to self-harm in any of its forms. And the same probably applies to women”.
So who I mix with? Well, apart from my personal friends, its my students and hundreds of troubled people over the years, as well as those in the depths of despair.

Now the “risk-taking”? (I had to giggle at your idea of me as one of the nanny brigade: - nothing, I assure you, could be further from the truth). I should have qualified that: what is referred to as risk-taking behaviour amongst people who are not mentally stable (i.e. potential or attempted suicides) are such things as playing “chicken” on the highway, playing Russian Roulette etc. -…not buying a Ducatti ( more power to your friend!)or bungee jumping or riding bicycles without helmets!

Feminist newfound concern for her sons is a fascinating concept. I was wondering when it would come, and what Romany may have to say. Very insightful too, that Yvonne would wish more could be nurses.

Momentarily, I thought why not – not enough of them may be medical specialists just yet, but female doctors surely verge on outnumbering their male counterparts. If not right now, it’s just a matter of time before they emerge out of that particular professional production pipeline. Male nurses will then find themselves in the right place at the right time. A powerful new social demographic: “the doctor’s husbands”.

But then I recall a chance revelation of a “wise” old feminist war tart audibly declaring her usually silent credo of “feminise or demonise”. That could also explain much.

Hi Cireena,

No need for any apology. I often have better things to do too ... especially when I feel the breeze and the sea beckoning seductively.

I can undestand how this 'mate' thing gains such a significance. And you expressed it well. Though I think it may be reflective of an inability to express sensivity rather than a cause of a problem. I see it as probably a symptom... And I think it likely more so among those youngsters who've had insensitive or uncommunative dads. Ahh's there's the problem...

I enjoy giggling women ... especially nannies. Giggling used as both adjective and verb. You write with unusual insight, maturity and well.

Looking with hindsight, my comment about who you mix with, could have been taken as an unkind jibe. Thanks for not reading it as such.

With my usual dry hunour and Aussie way, I'd have to say if I'd said
'...apart from my personal friends, its my students and hundreds of troubled people over the years, as well as those in the depths of despair.'
I'd have added the word other in the appropriate places.:-)

Btw my mate with the Ducati is a half-wit. The other day he was driving at 30kph down the middle of the road with a great big melon on his head and hundreds of angry commuters behind him. Not funny? Well the same bloke rode bicycles competitively in Europe and can often be seen racing around locally on his bicycle at over 80kp with a little bit of leather on his head .

With your qualification your article takes on another angle and helps it become more/very relevant. Ta.

Keith, enjoyed reading your posts.

You make some very interesting points. Especially your points about risk taking.

Looking back with my sons, I remember my unusual and uncomfortable predicaments when my boys wanted to do something daring that normally they would have done without necessarily telling me. It put me in the weird position of not being able to just be a mum and make all the worrying noises, that it scares/worries me because I had the power of preventing them by not giving permission.

I always felt that by 'giving permission' in writing no less, I somehow agreed that it was OK by me for my child to get injured. I don't know how I would have dealt with my guilt if something dreadful had happened to my beautiful child who would not have been there but for my agreement.

There is this implication of irresponsible parents when a child gets seriously injured or killed. It is a terrible burden to bear that you were responsible for endangering your child, it is so contrary to your instincts as a parent.

My brothers, and myself for that matter, had the fortune of doing daring things knowing full well that you'd better make sure to be careful, because hellish things would come raining down on your neck if you hurt yourself.

Nowadays no kid can even ride a bike to school without parental signed permission.

My boys are now adults, but as underage kids, did such daring things as participating in rodeos riding bulls. Going full pelt on a barely trained brumby after a runaway calf.

I still marvel at my courage to give consent. I am very, very glad that I don't need to do that anymore. Now I can just be horrified after the fact and marvel at their courage whilst telling them that I'll kill them if they hurt themselves.

Yvonne,

Your courage is observable.

Many mums and dads these days don't seem able to exhibit that same trait.

We thought alike. But I am equally sure neither of us would have let our youngsters undertake activities that were truely dangerous or inappropriate to their experience or ability. For example I'd never had let mine near bulls nor horses as they simply hadn't grown up in that environment and would have had no idea about bull or horse behaviour or knowledge of the risks. I doubt you would have let yours do some of the things mine had done for exactly the same reasons.

Yep I agree, permission to do that permission to do this ... all inspired by fear, or that lack of courage, and often a fear not for hurt but for fear the child might fail. I wonder how that affected or affects the next generation?

I'm sure the fear of our youngsters failling is something we've occassionally shared in the past as well, and overcame with the same fortitude.

Keith,

I much agree with your post about risk. I fear for the young ones these days growing up under the umbrella protection from risk that seems the norm these days. Fretful parents egged on by the daily ACA scare campaign cocooning kids and not letting them grow is a big problem.

The other thing is this idea that Self Esteem is king. This everybody gets a prize idea we have these days doesn't prepare kids for adulthood. We have a generation of kids thinking they are so brilliant and talented and gorgeous and flawless, and they discover their limitations all in the one go when they reach adulthood. Much better to learn that stuff along the way, and instead give kids the tools to deal with failure, disappointment and prejudice.

Rather than deceiving children to think they are perfect, it's better to tell them it's ok not to be perfect.

diver dan,

'Free choices available to modern man are in the decline, make the best of it.'
Good one. I like the sentiment, but there's no more choices after you're dead. I suppose it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem

Romany (cireena?), Yvonne,

You have both gone up in my estimation. Such compassion for males from feminists! I suppose that must be a constant battle in your lives to have sons. God has a great sense of irony.

Romany,

'“I don’t want him to be my mate, I want him to be my Dad”,'
I would have rathered the other way around as a youngster. I want my kids NOT to call me dad. I want them to see me as a person.

I do see what you mean though about pushing little boys to be men. I remember my father always telling me to look after my mother when he went OS on business from when I was about 5 years old. Recently at a wedding my brother in law's 5 year old was quiet all day, racked with nerves about having to deliver the best man speach for his dad. He did seem to enjoy being let out to have cigars with the men later in the day though.

Yvonne,

'There is almost this constant need to proof: 'I'm straight''

I think many women over estimate the prevalence and effects of homophobia. If guys don't look at each others knobs at the urinal it's just as much about respect and privacy as it is about homophobia for example. I think women are incapable of 'getting' some male things. As men are of women.

All young people feel pressure to conform, and there will always be jocks, nerds, emos etc. The jocks don't rule the world as a lot of women think. I just think women notice jocks more, and find that culture the most distastefully male. It's their own feelings of 'I hate you but I want you' that winds women up.

Thanks Keith, I'm still glad I don't need to anguish about giving permission anymore though.

Ha ha Usual Suspect:). You're not serious with your gibe about feminists and men are you?

We have grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, lovers and also sons. We are surrounded by men. My father was the single biggest influence on me, expecting the same from me as he did from his sons. It was not until adulthood, that I realized how unusual that was.

With bringing up boys, I am glad that my boys had excellent examples of expression of masculinity in their growing up.

You touching on self esteem and fear of failure is another hobby horse of mine. It's a wonder we still allow our babies to learn to walk. It takes absolutely months before the blighters get that right. Amazing really that we're not protecting them from that constant onslaught on their self esteem ...yet.

What an interesting discussion.

I've written before of the way in which the feminisation of society is taking us down the path of excessive caution in all public endeavours. As Keith said, this is not something that sits well with a male psyche in many cases. Furthermore, the change has been so rapid over the past 15 or so years, that many of those boys would have been inculcated with quite different attitudes when growing up to those they are expected to evince today. In some cases they are expected to behave in ways that are antithetical to their upbringing. The strain sometimes takes its toll.

I suspect the strain is being felt by girls, too, given the spate of headlines about girls behaving badly. Revolutions must always have their victims.

Yvonne,

No I'm not serious. But it must create a conflict of interest sometimes. Say if you were a feminist in favour of affirmitive action, and you know that would disadvantage your son. Or watching your son get shafted by his ex wife using family law that was designed to protect women.

I know, I know, not many feminists accept the existance of the zero-sum game.

Usual Suspect, I get angry when I see anybody get 'shafted'. Male or female. In the end it is the kids who pay the prize. I've seen either gender parents get 'shafted'.

It is not the system. It is who gets to the best lawyer first who has the upper hand. Ideally it is the parent who does not wish to use the kids as a powerful weapon to score points against the other.

Feminism, as I, and very many other feminists that I know, see it is not about a competition with men. Competition in that there are winners and losers. It is about creating an equal playing field resulting in an equal chance at opportunities. Men and women each comprise about half of the human species. In an ideal world gender shouldn't come into it anymore.

Re affirmative action. Affirmative action is not only for the benefit of women. There can be any number of groups that benefit from affirmative action. Not only gender based.

For instance, I don't know if that is still going, if a male you had preference in admission to Uni for Primary school teaching. The Nursing profession has greatly benefited by the express encouragement of male student enrollment and subsequent male RN's working.

Why would my son feel that he had lost out if a woman was chosen over him, but not if the successful candidate were a man? Either way he would have lost out. That is how it goes, you know

yvonne,

'It is not the system. It is who gets to the best lawyer first who has the upper hand. Ideally it is the parent who does not wish to use the kids as a powerful weapon to score points against the other'

I think the prime carer has the upper hand really. Which is more often the woman.

It's a natural bias of society to see the mother as the most important parent. I don't see in a system that was originally lobbied for by feminists, and that proposes to put the child first, that the secondary carer who is only a father anyway is going to come out very well.

'Feminism, as I, and very many other feminists that I know, see it is not about a competition with men. '
Yes. But it is not always possible to further the interests of women without it being at the expense of men.

Affirmitive action can not be justified in any situation. It is grounded on the lazy assumption that if unequal numbers of men and women occupy a certain profession that it must be evidence of discrimination. It totally ignores free choice, and also assumes equal representation is the ideal in the first place. Men and women are different.

Affirmitive action counters assumed discrimination with actual discrimination.

'Why would my son feel that he had lost out if a woman was chosen over him, but not if the successful candidate were a man? '
If he lost out because he is a man, not based on ability.