A sub topic which started on the "Spiritual or Religious or Both?" thread got my attention.

Whitty made a comment "Why must men share, communicate, romantisize their feelings the same as women. I really reject societies attempts to feminise men."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1622#31402

Men suicide at far higher rates that women I thought so maybe we learn from women when it comes to dealing with feelings (although women attempt suicide at higher rates). We also die younger, are jailed more etc. Suicide and lifespan could be see as indicators of how well we are travelling.

Then I thought, does talking about emotions increase or decrease the likelyhood of suiciding for men. A play with google yielded no likely looking research.

I did find an interesting paper from the Wesley mission on suicide in Australia http://www.wesleymission.org.au/publications/r&d/suicide.htm which does not appear to answer my question. It did include the folowing comment

"An analysis of the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics suicide rates by the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare dispels the widely held belief that suicide is primarily a problem among Australian youth. Their findings show that the rise in male suicide has been almost entirely due to an increase in the rates for males aged over the age of 20."

Any thoughts on the role expressing feelings plays in mens mental well being?

Are the ones suiciding those who talk about their feelings, those who deal with feelings another way or does the expression of feelings make no difference?

Is there a better way for men to deal with the feelings stuff than "share, communicate, romantisize their feelings the same as women" as Whitty put it?

R0bert

I am no expert RObert but instinctively feel that a person who is comfortable in seeking help or expressing their feelings might be less at risk of suicide. As far as men go, you cannot change people – they are who they are but education could be the key.

There was a ‘Landline’ feature on depression in rural areas. The town of Sheffield in Tasmania was highlighted as a town which had set up an action plan to fight this increasing epidemic after ten of their local farmers committed suicide.

See:
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1794064.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1940302.htm

The Sheffield plan sought to educate people in recognising the symptoms of depression so that help could be offered before it was too late. The key was the whole community was involved which helped remove the stigma from depression as the increase in the number of men seeking help rose.

The statistics in your link highlight that men and are more at risk of suicide. The sad thing is that these statistics are probably too low. A policeman friend of mine told me that some road accidents he attended were thought to be suicide (lack of other evidence such as skid marks to indicate swerving and after information obtained from family members) but could not be proven absolutely so were categorised as accidents. There are also many more attempted suicides some probably failed attempts some perhaps a signal for help.

Young men seem to be most at risk. I am not sure why – there are a lot of mixed messages for boys. Their roles are not as clear as they might have been years ago and they fall behind girls at school, they are confused about masculinity, the pressure now in the job/career market to do well at school, how to share their feelings and problems, effects of family dysfunction and many other issues I am sure that I am not qualified to speculate. The good news is that these issues have been recognised and there are now programs targeted at boys so hopefully these will have some effect.

One rather hopeful aspect to the suicide rate of young men is: you may have heard that Australian statistics were the highest in the world for males under 18? Or for males under 20? Now for young men under 25? This is because it was recognised, as a matter of urgency, that we were losing far too many young men under 18 and so a rigorous campaign was undertaken by the Department of Mental Health, which has had pretty good results. However, as that original demographic grows up and ages, they take that statistic with them. Thus those original "under 18s" are now young men under 25, but the statistics for younger males is dropping.

The problem appears to be not so much that men won't talk. They do. The problem is that they will not seek help. While they will discuss their problems with a mate, girlfriend, mother etc.(sadly very few discuss it with their fathers and, indeed, often their fear that fathers will find out is what keeps them from seeking help) they will not take it that step further and get professional help. This is also a problem with older men who die from testicular cancer etc. because they will not seek timely help.

What Pelican said is also true: risk-taking behaviour is often a symptom of mental problems. Thus, those who self-harm for example,but are made to stop by well-meaning parents or friends, will engage in the kind of behaviour which is far more likely to have tragic results.

"Men suicide at far higher rates that women I thought so maybe we learn from women when it comes to dealing with feelings (although women attempt suicide at higher rates)."

If women attempt suicide at higher rates I am unclear as to how a male attribute can be considered the cause of suicide. To my way of thinking the different death rates must be due to the effectiveness of the means men employ. Indeed if women were as adept at killing themselves the logical extrapolation seems to be that more would die then men. The relevant male attribute appears to relate to means of suicide then wish to attempt suicide.

My guess is that getting on a quiet stretch of road, holding down the accelerator and lining up a tree or shooting yourself in the head is just more typical for a male to do then women. I'm guessing women take less aggressive means such as sleeping tablets and are thus more likely to be rescued.

What I'm saying is I am not clear as to how your data supports your argument. Can you please explain that aspect?

Great posts guys.

Excellent thread you have started here R0bert.

Mjpb

Your thoughts are most erudite indeed, it is true that women use less violent methods to top themselves than men, hence the lack of success(?). Have had personal experience here.

We need to be looking at issues of self-esteem in a more holistic manner than we have been at present. There is still too much stigma attached to mental 'disease' despite campaigns like Beyond-Blue.

The pressure on boys to be some idealised version of manliness, limits them from seeking help as has been pointed out. Women have set-up support groups and men are finally starting to do the same. Men and boys need a space where they can just let loose with their thoughts - not the kind of drum-beating stuff, but real talk with male mentors who can give rational feed-back.

I hope that this discussion can generate some positive outcomes, R0bert, rather than degenerating as so many discussions do. Mental illness does not discriminate and neither should we in tackling this often hidden disease.

Fractelle,

Thank you very much.

"The pressure on boys to be some idealised version of manliness, limits them from seeking help as has been pointed out. Women have set-up support groups and men are finally starting to do the same. Men and boys need a space where they can just let loose with their thoughts - not the kind of drum-beating stuff, but real talk with male mentors who can give rational feed-back."

I agree completely to all the points packed in there. I suspect alot of the current groups are just drum beating gimicky things.

Well, as I said on the other thread, I don't think making men feel as though they 'should' be more open in their feelings is the answer.

Some blokes just ain't wired that way.

Making them aware they 'can' speak to mates is a good approach, but not all mates are equipped to handle it and I guess if they don't want to change I don't see that forcing men to be more open is the answer.

Ideally, sure, they should be able to discuss their pressing issues with close friends - but, perhaps, those friends aren't necessarily male. I guess I interact in a different manner with male and female friends and I'm probably more likely to discuss different things.
I don't see that as a bad thing and it doesn't mean I value either any less - and no, it doesn't mean the discussions with the lads are just about sex, cars n' booze ;).
Discussions with women you're involved with are a different matter altogether.

That being said, some pressing issues remain private - I don't think it's always because people feel they can't discuss these issues.

Sometimes, I think they just don't want to.

That mightn't come across as the 'right' way of dealing with things, but the attitude that every man should be more... I don't know, more chatty or even just more open... it just doesn't ring true for everyone.

Though yes, I agree that it's important that men feel they 'can' discuss emotional things with mates. I draw the line at the idea that they 'should'.

mjpb, I don't really have an argument on this, rather I'm trying to find what others know on the topic and see if I can develop a better understanding from others thinking. It came out of my thinking about comments on another thread but the discussion did not belong on that thread.

I initially assumed that learning to talk about feelings more openly would be beneficial but rising male suicide rates during a period when men have increasing freedom to talk about feelings gave me cause to wonder what is known on the topic.

I'm not suggesting that freedom to talk about feelings is a root cause of suicide, rather wondering what impact doing so has on someone already close to the edge.

In regards to the differing rates. I'm uncertain how good the research behind it is but material I've seen in the past suggests that a significant number of failed suicide attempts are cries for help rather than actual suicide attempts. People who pop a bunch of pills and ring a friend to get them to come around.

I've been the friend for one such attempt and it really scared me how close I came to being too late (I was not told why my friend wanted me to drop over).

The differing means used by men and women certainly account for a proportion of the difference in success rates as well.

R0bert

R0bert

Careful how you judge things, you stated, "I'm uncertain how good the research behind it is but material I've seen in the past suggests that a significant number of failed suicide attempts are cries for help rather than actual suicide attempts. People who pop a bunch of pills and ring a friend to get them to come around."

Sometimes people really have had enough and really do want it all to end. Problem was that the cries for help went unheeded long before the suicide attempt to the point where suicide seemed like the only way out.

A favourite movie of mine is "Cool Hand Luke", starring Paul Newman, in it he uttered a line that has great resonance for many:

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Dear Robert,

Like the feminine role, the masculine role supposedly, is now more ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to interpretation by the individual. But is it?

Bob Ellis, ABC 'Unleased,' states, five Australian men suicide each day and only one woman. Why is this so?

Ellis explains that, " ...men have images of themselves, as conqueror, provider, breadwinner, football star, self-made billionaire, chick magnet, local hero, which if they fail at, darken their mood. There are so many things they can fail at, so many contests they are in, so many medals they will not win, so many promises to keep, that the gun in the drawer comes to mind pretty frequently, or its equivalent...

The women watch as the men crack up. They hide the whisky bottle.
They hide the rifle. They join the prayer group. They make the begging phone calls. They investigate the necessary medication. They cop the odd belt in the face. They stand by their man. This is what ...many women do. They cope, they deal with the children, they rally round. They bury their egos and keep the show on the road.

But men are warriors in the end. They need the testing battles that will prove their worth or end their lives.

They are challenge-seeking animals, heat-seeking missiles, fools for pointless contest. They need the victory at darts, at pool, at horse-betting, marlin fishing, stock-market speculation that affirms them...

Any change of address, any loss of job, any default in a mortgage payment... any office downsizing that targets you or your lifestyle, is a sanity-threatening trauma, an ego-diminishing kick in the guts, a personal catastrope..."

That's what Bob Ellis tells us at:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleased/stories/s2198322.htm

It's an article that may be of interest to other posters.

Having read it - I feel that if men would 'spill their guts' and not keep it inside - if they were able to vent their feelings to someone,
it would help. It certainly wouldn't hurt.

I dunno foxy, it seems a little one sided. At the risk of beginning another gender war, which is the last thing we need, I'd make the point that the stoic image presented there can just as easily be occupied by men - remaining silent, picking up the pieces as life throws barbs at their wife.
Women have often played a supporting role when men were the 'breadwinners' as it were, but what of the common image of the men who go all out to support their wives during pregnancy, racing off to the store in the middle of the night to find something to satisfy a craving?
Note here, I'm not arguing this is wrong, quite the contrary. But it's another perspective.

Yes, men are perhaps more likely to hold emotional matters inside - but perhaps, it isn't the handicapped approach that is cited there.
It's just as likely that men are in fact, shielding their loved ones from the things you mention.

The implication there is that this approach will always fail. I'll agree it's not the best idea and discussion is the best way forward - but the idea, that the man who stays silent inevitably ends up hurting those around him, I think, isn't fair.

So yes - men should know they 'can' talk about these things, but the pervasive attitude that men who don't are somehow emotionally handicapped, isn't right.

Fractelle: Bingo!

Robert: - as I said, the intensive campaign and the measures that were introduced for handling mental issues seem to have had an effect - but its not nearly enough, is it?

I think the message people don't want to hear is that we are all responsible. Our actions and attitudes do impact upon others and so many of us don't give enough consideration to this fact.

The other point to consider is that none of us is immune. People who have good relationships with their children, or who are convinced they have done the right thing by them frequently assert that their children would never do something like that. Unfortunately this attitude is easily picked up by their offspring who use it to compound the guilt/hopelessness or whatever lack they are fighting against.

Rather than "At least none of my kids would do anything like that" we should be getting the message across that "No matter what, I'm always here for you ". Of course, we all FEEL like that. But do we convince our kids or, by openly dissing (for example) homosexual persons, drug takers, those who aren't very clever etc. etc. are we unconsciously closing doors to our children?

One constantly hears the refrain "I feel so guilty. Mum and Dad think I'm so....strong/brave/good/intelligent/talented/balanced/sensible..." the list goes on. Then on meeting parents one finds them shocked and incredulous that their child would have thought they would not understand their particular dillemma.

So another thing which keeps people from talking is the fear that one is not living up to expectations. The tragic thing is that often those "expectations" honestly do not exist.

As others have said this issue is too important to become part of yet another gender debate.

I remember a story told by Jeff Kennett at a function in his capacity as spokesperson for Beyond Blue. A staff member who worked in the hotel he was staying at approached him to thank him for lifting the veil of secrecy surrounding depression. This fellow had struggled with depressive thoughts for some time and believed discussing his problem would alientate his wife, family and friends. When he found the courage to talk about it he was met with only love and support not only from those close to him but from his workplace as well.

On a positive note, many workplaces run courses during working hours to educate and inform their staff about depression which would suggest that we have come a long way from the unhelpful and negative stigma surrounding mental illness and depression while recognising we still need to do more to understand and prevent these illnesses.

Does anyone know of any research to suggest why depression has increased? Or is it that it is just more reported?

Foxy, if I actually believed I was a member of the same species as Bob Ellis, I would have topped myself years ago.

One of our local ABC male "personalities" was gushing on about how he mashed potato the other day. What the modern SNAG aspires to, wow.

Bring back the dinosaurs, & give men something worthwhile to do, or, god help us, we can all sit around bleating like the sheep most of us have become. No wonder some of us take the easy way out.

Dear TRTL,

I agree with you.

Men are now permitted a more gentle and expressive personality than would have been considered appropriate a few decades ago.

The 'John Wayne' image of manhood has less and less appeal to both sexes.

As I stated previously, like the feminine role, the masculine role is now more ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to interpretation by the individual. Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of the challenge of social and cultural change.

Under the old system, everyone knew what their roles were, and most people unquestioningly behaved as they were supposed to. The system constrained people, but it freed them from the need to make choices.

There are fewer constraints today, but again, as I stated earlier,
the individual now has the liberty - or the burden - to choose his or her own path to self-fulfillment.

This does not necessarily mean that women will gradually adopt the characteristics of men or vice versa or that the two existing genders will converge on some happy medium.

The most probable pattern is one in which many alternative lifestyles and roles will be acceptable for both men and women.

Australian society is individualistic and highly open to change and it is likely that men and women will explore a wide variety of possible roles. True liberation from the restrictions of gender would mean that all possible options would be open and equally acceptable for both sexes. Then a person's individual human qualities, rather than his or her biological sex, would be the primary measure of that person's worth and achievement.

hi to all the forgotten australians out their ,

i read some of the post here and find them interesting ,

it took me over 20 years to speak about whayt had happend to me when i was placed into institutional care , im a victim of two pedophiles that raped and abused me in daruk boys home , i finally could not hold this back no more and still effects me to this day , i speak about it because it is the truth ,

yes i have had suicide attempts at times of which are on record, but i am still here, just .

i have also had people try to take my life for speaking out and telling the truth , of which is on police record,

so to me speaking out can help and can also make things worse of which i have found ,

their is no such thing as self justice thats why i am going through the courts ,

the forgotten australians are victims of horriffic crimes against children and the australian goverment and the states of australia know this and know its real and true , we will no longer be forgotten

,a real victim of institutional abuse by the employees of the state of new south wales

regards huffnpuff

Thanks to all for the great input so far.

Foxy I'd agree that Bob Ellis's world is not my world. Maybe that of the Alpha types.

I suspect that if we can avoid a gender war we could have a quite wide ranging discussion here. Some very important issues.

I'm wondering if the models used for sharing emotional stuff are ones which often don't work well for men. Is there another way of doing some of that stuff that would work better.

My recollections of marriage counselling was of a process that refused to accept that I might not be comfortable framing things in the terms the counsellors seemed to want. An approach and communication framework which really did not work for me. I seemed to be pressured to fit the framework the counsellors wanted rather than the counsellors trying to find a framework that let us all express ourselves effectively.

I consider myself quite expressive and willing to talk about emotional issues but I don't tend to phrase things the way others expect. I don't know if I'll be able to quantify that better if challenged about it.

Fractelle, I'm very uncertain of the credibility of the material regarding failed suicide attempts. I recall reading material on it some time ago and it is a plausable reason for the difference in success rates. The perceived plausibility of that theory may be impacted by my single experience with a suicide attempt by a friend. That was very clearly a case of pop some pills and call a friend to come around.

I'm heading out for the evening so I'll stop there.
Please keep the comments and discussion flowing.

R0bert

Dear Hasbeen,

I don't think that sharing your problems instead of 'keeping it inside,' makes you 'a sheep' as you put it.

Some men may benefit from not 'keeping it inside.'

I'll give you a case example:

Most men would be shocked to find out they were infertile. There is still a common, incorrect belief that infertility is a female condition. Therefore when men are told that there is a sperm problem,
they are often quite unprepared.

It is not unusual for infertile men to feel stressed about an initial diagnosis. They may also find it difficult to deal with their stress, particularly if they don't feel comfortable speaking to others about their emotions. Men don't usually express their feelings in the same way as women, but the anger, guilt and anxiety felt can appear in many ways.

Stress often comes from feelings of vulnerability. Being told that there is a sperm problem could strike at the core of men's masculinity. Most infertile men at some time would struggle with the idea that they are not able to do what other men can. This could lead them to confuse their infertility with their sense of masculinity, sexuality, virility and potency. It would not be unusual for these men to experience episodes of all sorts of difficulties, while they tried to come to terms with their diagnosis.

Most men would need to understand why they are infertile. Sometimes no reason can be given, which could lead to feelings of frustration. Where possible, knowing the cause would help men accept the problem, but it could also leave them with a sense of injustice.

Men and women often have different responses to a diagnosis of infertility. Women may commonly feel a sense of loss or bereavement whereas men would sense that their infertility exposes them to potential ridicule and humiliation from others. Men would then feel added stress as they tried to find ways to manage this perceived situation.

And of course - some men would manage alright. But some would not.
And it's those men that 'couseling' may help.

Good to see you still posting Foxy. I think you’re quite right and male infertility could do some strange things to the psyche of those confronted with it, but I’m not sure how that relates to Hasbeen (I can only assume there is some personal knowledge of his particular brand of male discontent).

“Most men would need to understand why they are infertile.”

While I can’t truthfully claim total neutrality on your gendered outline of the supposed differences in perception and reaction to men’s reproduction dilemmas, I could perhaps add, that it could be worse (or better), depending on a man’s frame of mind.

What if the infertile man was raising his children as a good father and husband, only to find out some distance down his life’s journey, there’s a little thing euphemistically referred to by women as false paternity attribution? And what of that partially infertile male? Guess women will be first to tell him his glass is somewhat full, rather than partially empty

Without a doubt the fact that men are conditioned to keep their feelings to themselves is one contributing factor of suicide. When I say conditioned I am talking about the socialization of boys vs. girls.

Girls form close bonds with friends and they talk about everything and anything that is vaguely on their radar. By contrast, boys tend to run in a pack like gang which by its nature precludes the opportunity for boys to talk about what is on their minds. This conditioning then follows them into adulthood and the inability to talk freely and openly about feelings sets the risk factors for suicide in place.

Suicide is all about emotional pain and wanting to stop this pain. One way to assist in preventing suicide is to talk about what is happening. Again with females it comes much easier however with males the risk factor of not talking is already there.

On a positive note- issues such as depression and suicide have become much more talked about in society today thereby enabling signs of depression and warning signs of suicide to be more readily identified.

Furthermore, male suicide rates are apparently on the decline thanks to health policy initiatives introduced in the mid to late 90’s.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20082003-17075-2.html

It is a dark and lonely place to be at when the thought of suicide is being considered. It is only by talking that it can be prevented.

2b perfectly_honest......

I don't think I've ever shared 'talked about' the things which are most close to my inner being.. problems...I'd probably talk about things further from my core.

I just feel that If I can't resolve the issue myself.. to goto someone else would be abrogating my own independance and making myself dependant on them... never a good move if it can be avoided.

On issues such as medical stuff..of course..I goto the doc. I know myself well enough to answer the other questions "Why did I do such and such"...or.."why_do_people_react_this_way_or_that_to_me"

The most frustrating aspect of life is when you become the 'bad guy' in other peoples minds who don't know all the facts, they just 'blame' you anyway. In such cases, there is no where to turn except 'others' who can reinforce or rebutt your own understanding of the issue.

I was told just a couple of days ago that I was not 'compassionate' by a woman who had horses on my property..I terminated her access so I can get other very hungry horses to a different section of the property to FEED them.. as the owners (one of them being a friend of hers) were not doing it. Then, when I described the owner (the one who is her friend) of one horse as 'irresponsible' for not feeding it or not even contacting me about it... welllll.... I got the 'your not compassionate' speech. Then, to make matters worse, she contacted the RSPCA .. about who? the owner? Nope.. about ME... for allowing the neglected horses to go hungry.. (which I could'nt do anything about because HER horses were in the way of access to food and trying to keep hers 'in' but let the others 'out' was logistically impossible.

So.. even though our next meal could depend on the money from agistment... (not that the woman asked, but it has been that tight at times) I'm the bad guy for trying to get payment out of these people and to get them to feed their horses.

Aaah..fun times :)

This has been a most interesting thread. Thank You Robert for bringing it up. It's a topic that's so close to home. I said that I wouldn't bring up 'personal stuff' again on this Forum. But if it helps someone out there, well here goes...

My husband was told quite a few years ago that he had a 'low sperm count.' He was devastated. He's the type of man that could not discuss personal matters with other people (not even me). So he kept things bottled up - with devastating results. He started to drink heavily... We were told to 'adopt' because my chances of becoming pregnant were minimal. My gyno - even wanted to put me on 'fertility pills' (moron). Then low and behold - five years later - I got pregnant - and had our two boys. Bliss!

Counseling - or being able to vent his feelings - I know would have helped not only my husband - but our relationship. It was the way my husband was brought up. Men just simply did not talk about 'personal stuff.' They simply 'wore it in silence.' Otherwise they weren't considered to be 'men.'

My God, what we went through! And it certainly would have helped us both to share in the crisis that my husband was going through.

Never mind - things aren't perfect (what marriage is - except maybe in the movies?). But over the years - we've learnt that talking does help... not talking - builds up barriers - that destroy people and relationships.

Thankfully - we've survived - now we have other problems to deal with - but I'm determined - none of us is ever going to 'go it alone!'
again.

Anyway, I apologise in advance for being so personal - but if it helps someone else on the Forum - I'll be glad I did it!

Take care.

I think that the fact that Foxy felt she had to apologise - more than once - for her post is illustrative of the problem. Why should we think there's something wrong with talking about the experiences that shaped us or made us who we are?

So, o.k, there are those who prefer to keep it inside. The thing is a lot of them, deep down, feel that is the 'correct' way to behave. That stoicism equals strength and fortitude and all the values which are good for society while those who don't feel the same are weak and self-indulgent. Therefore, no matter how flucked up their lives may be, at least the stoics are doing the 'right' thing by not burdening anyone.

When I ask my students to use words to describe a man the words strong and brave are always top of the list. In describing a woman gentle and talkative always appear. So keeping everything bottled up equals manly virtues and letting it out is equated to femininity.

So that Foxy, who really knows that this is all outmoded b.s. still feels compelled to apologise to the brave souls out there who are doing the right and manly thing by exhibiting the correct sort of stoicism that built up empires?

Until we can truly admit that we all shares values like strength and weakness, introversian and extroversian, honesty and deceit, we are going to go on having these discussions and they will go on being complicated by underlying themes of masculinity and femininity, right and wrong. People who keep their feelings in are neither stronger nor weaker, exclusively masculine or shamingly feminine; nor are they right or wrong.

But they do tend to suicide more.

Any thoughts on writing explanation notes before the event.

Perhaps it may help explain and prevent it ??

Foxy, thanks for sharing that. It does take courage to share personal stuff on a public forum where that is not always respected.

Romany, part of what got me started was wondering if "they do tend to suicide more.". Is there empirical evidence about that? I tend to hold the view that it's healthier to share feelings but it's not a view I'm certain is backed up by evidence. Before you ask I've not been off to the state library or Uni libraries about this :)

Boazy, it takes a lot of trust to get to the things closest to the core. Casual dismissal of that stuff can be devestating. I don't get there often enough.

I often find that just trying to explain something to someone else helps me to understand it better. It's not abrogation as I retain the decision making responsibility. I'm not sure what you mean by "making myself dependant", how far does that go?

I'm reliant on a lot of other people friends included for my day to day life. I might be able to live a massivly simplified and less rich life without them but I'd not choose that. I try to ensure that I give as I receive (or better). I don't much like those along for the ride at others expense but we all function better with others. I've been there for friends during tough times and friends have been there for me in tough times (not always the same ones). That's something I cherish rather than reject. I'm suspecting that you meant something different but if so I have not really grasped your meaning.

Seeker, I'm really hoping that we can continue a constructive discussion without yet another gender war. Paternity fraud is a nasty issue which I'd be happy to toss my two cents in about on an appropriate thread but is only likely to sidetrack this discussion.

R0bert

Dear Robert,

Thanks for understanding as always.

Dear Romany,

I really thought twice about sharing this time - because as Robert said - it's not always respected.
However - I thought it important - in case it may help somebody else - so I went ahead.

We deal with traumas in our own way - but for me at least - it does
help to talk about it rather than bottle it up.

Thankyou Foxy for being brave and so determined to clarify the context of your earlier post, that thoughtless people like me jump at in criticism. Now I feel bad :-)

So let me now take this discussion more seriously, and congratulate R0bert on a well-chosen subject (and thank him for his thoughtful reprimand).

I think a lot of men expect to be able to solve most problems that affect them and those closest to them. Sure, they use experts from time to time, but they probably don’t use them enough. There is definitely a gender difference here. Think of maps and asking the locals for direction, then extrapolate this to other everyday behaviour. Men value self-reliance more, women tend to attach greater value to social interaction. This is not to say that either places little value on the other, but rather that there is a discernable difference in approaches (as a generalisation of course).

Men hate to dependent on others. They are programmed to have others depend on them. Conflicts arise for both men and women in modern societies that seek to neutralise too much of human nature. Social engineering appears at odds with some primordial genetics we still replicate while at the same time, the legal system often seems to trail that very society and its science.

People do suicide because of mental illness, but they also do so aided with temporary mental instability that may be caused by great injustice, personal violation, powerlessness, or feelings of loss (all of which should be preventable). Governments are shirking their responsibility here, just as they are with child welfare. The modern state has set itself up as some sort of clearing house for all human transactions, but as a regulator of all such interaction, it is a dismal failure.

Yes, great topic R0bert. Of course it's one with which every man can identify at some level.

I think that there's no question that men in our society are generally socialised in ways that ultimately cause us to repress any feelings we may have that might be interpreted as signs of weakness - both to ourselves and others. This, of course, confers numerous advantages in our engagement with the big wide, generally masculine, world.

However, I also think that this very conditioning also confers upon us numerous negatives at the individual level, and that these are often manifested in our physical and mental health. Men often don't go and see their GP when they experience the first signs of various serious physical illnesses, and the same thing applies to our mental health. We 'soldier on', frequently to the extent that minor stuff bubbles away until it becomes deadly serious - this applies equally to prostate cancer or depression.

Personally, I'm a notorious stoic. However, I've learnt over the years that this is not always the most successful survival strategy :)

My father died of a cerebral hemorrhage at age 53.

It was standard procedure then, to perform an autopsy on anyone who suddenly died and hadn't visited a doctor within a 12 month period.

I can't recall my father ever visiting a doctor.

There are times when stoicism is appropriate, war, disasters of some kind, in fact any situation of crisis where a cool head is required. At such times such stoicism may be displayed by either men or women.

However, in day to day living such 'stoicism' can be a death sentence.

Robert -

This is one of those situations in which I kinda hesitated before posting. Because I hate to sound like those people who post innacurate information which they swear they have the provenance for but can't lay their hands on just at the moment.

But, really, I came here with my regulation allowance of 20 kilos (well, o.k., about 26 all up) and nothing more.

All I can say is that yes, information garnered from case studies,(which often included suicide notes), personal experience and psychology journals did indicate that discussion and seeking help did lead to more positive outcomes. Those who internalised completely and did not seek help or guidance presented as more at risk.

Given time I could perhaps slowly find contacts and research again - but then it would be starting from scratch and anyone can do that. So, sorry, I honestly can't point you directly at any immediately available source. Though your local community welfare organisations, who are a really helpful lot, would probably be able to give you some pointers in the right direction.

A footnote: those "take a couple of pills and call a friend" occurrances are considered cries for help and ALL cries for help are considered important. And yes, the chosen method - guns, driving off cliffs or into trees, pills ) does impact on the number of successful suicides.

CJ Morgan & Fractelle,

Good points.

“There are times when stoicism is appropriate, war...

However, in day to day living such 'stoicism' can be a death sentence.”

“I think that there's no question that men in our society are generally socialised in ways ... This, of course, confers numerous advantages ...

However, I also think that this very conditioning also confers upon us numerous negatives ...”

It isn’t as simple as stoicism = emotional cripple and men just need to be taught to avoid it. As CJ pointed out being stoic can result in social advantages and presumably the corollary is failing to be stoic results in social disadvantages (presumably particularly for men). In addition it can provide other advantages in particular types of situations as Fractelle pointed out.

The current focus might not work as men may resist adopting social disadvantage. Perhaps remedying the problem might require education at a societal level. (Acknowledging of course that many already see the light as Foxy has demonstrated.) Such education would need to avoid being myopic and instead teach people to discriminate between when a stoic approach is productive and when it is counterproductive. In counterproductive situations the masculine image would need to be eroded.

Foxy’s experience raises a question in my mind. I once encountered a study on infertile men which indicated that their partners mainly become hostile after their infertility is diagnosed. If the relationship continues long enough things calm down apparently if a pregnancy results anyway or the couple use sperm donation or some other form of intervention. What if the partner’s reaction is not due to the infertility but instead is a manifestation of disrespect because the men get so upset that they break the taboo and fail to observe stoicism? For harmony the men might need to achieve the right match of partner’s perception and their degree of stoicism. If the partner considers stoicism masculine the cost of communication may be too high. If the partner values communication like Foxy stoicism would be counterproductive. If societal education resolved the perception issue this hypothetical dilemma would be moot.

I'll sidestep a couple of digs and concentrate on the core issue here.

From the time they are born we instill in the male, the manliness issue. We will,-with no derogatory intent, refer to 'little man', and in some cases where there has been a loss of the male parent in a household, we will say 'now you are the man of the house', sometimes to a child,-simply because he is male.

It is habit. And it is a bad habit. 'oh grow up and act like a man!', yet another.

There is pressure on the male child from very early on. it is never meant maliciously, but it teaches young males to be 'strong; to be men', and as such it comes with the unwritten 'rule' that to be so, one must not be weak = showing feelings = crying.

That experience for young males is what can cause huge problems for them in later life. Poor sods! (I mean that).

Romany, I know the feeling of having seen the material but not being able to lay hands on it. Thanks for the input regardless.

I also agree that cries for help are important but there seem's to be different issues at play compared to those who don't call a friend. Both are serious issues and both suggest that normal communication channels are not working well.

Ginx, well put. I suspect that the different characteristics are a mixture of genetic predisposition and socialisation. Somehow we need to equip kids better for a healthy mix.

R0bert

Dear Robert,

The following web-site may be of interest to posters:

http://www.mensconfraternity.org.au/?page=p8

It states that:

"One of the most frightening aspects of our modern world is the incredible rise in the rate of male suicide. Sadly it has been a topic which many, including both State and Federal politicians have found more convenient to ignore... the real reason for this huge rise in the cases of male suicide is the nature of men's roles in our changing society.

Men are being disenfranchised at every level. They are no longer needed as fathers or as providers for their family. They are no longer valued by employers. Men are seen as violators of human rights including the sole perpetrators of domestic violence, in short men have been made to carry the load of social reform in modern Australia.

Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Coroner's Office, and the Health Department of Western Australia show the male suicide rate in this state, between the ages of 39 to 55, has increased a massive 48%..."

And it goes on with more reasons...

It would be interesting to see what others thought of the article.

Foxy, I'm generally in agreement with what they have written. Family breakdown appears to be a significant factor in male suicide rates (different authors give different reasons).

I'm reluctant to go further with those issues on this thread because it could so easily divert us from what is for the most part a cooperative discussion which is building some understanding. There is plenty of space on other threads to follow those issues and I'm hoping this discussion will build some bridges to make those other discussions more productive.

We do seem to have a group of people on OLO now with differing opinions who are willing to treat each other with some respect and try to understand the others viewpoint. That is making me experience here that much better.

R0bert

“Does anyone know of any research to suggest why depression has increased? Or is it that it is just more reported?”

Just came to this thread and saw that no one else has commented on this question so will put in my bit for what it’s worth.

I definitely think it’s a condition that we are all more open about these days so people probably are reporting it more.

But my reading has also led me to believe that the incidence of depression is definitely on the rise and that there are several lifestyle factors contributing. One of course is the pressure and pace of modern western life and much relating to this factor has already been mentioned here.

Another contributing factor is one that most people scoff at initially because the relationship just seems too improbable but for many people there is a correlation between diet and depression.

A lot of people have a pancreas that doesn’t handle sugar properly. Because our modern western diet is high in sugar, more and more people with this inherent susceptibility are presenting with multiple symptoms, many of which are vague and difficult to specify, and one of these is cyclic and endogenous depression. It’s not so much the crushing relentless type of depression that doesn’t ease but the recurring variety that doesn’t always seem to be related to circumstance.

An estimated 60-70% of people suffering from depression have underlying hypoglycaemic disease, usually undiagnosed, as it's not a condition well understood by most conventional medical practitioners.

I'd lived with depression all my life until I learnt about this connection. It’s a lifetime condition but it can be managed very successfully and very naturally through the adoption of simple dietary and nutritional measures. I’m happy to explain further if anyone is interested though I’ve found from past experience that most aren’t!

One of the important social changes today is the disengagement of communities and the often vast geographical distances between family members. This ultimately leads to both men and women potentially feeling very isolated and alone. This in turn can be a predisposing factor in suicides.

Now we have all pretty much agreed that there is a conditioning of our boys/men to act strong and brave. Therefore coupled with the above described social changes my question is: What are we to do?

I feel a keen sense of despair when I think of those living in their homes separated from family and living in a community who probably for the most part do not even know their lonely neighbor exists. One such example is the elderly folk. They suicide at a rate that rivals the young ones. (Yes I'll note the stats if anyone asks.)

How do we get this busy human race of ours to take a moment and reach out to those in emotional, mental and spirtual pain? I think if we can answer this question we might be on the road to a solution.

Dear Bronwyn,

I for one would like to know more about the 'diet - depression' connection. If you could explain more, I'd be grateful.

Dear TammyJo,

The points you've raised make a lot of sense. Our society today has changed so much. A feeling of alienation must be overwhelming for those without family support.

I don't know how I would manage without my family around me. I remember - how different I used to be -( many, many years ago). I used to get into all sorts of fights.

But, with the help of my family (and counseling), I have learned not to let the little arrows that get fired at me through life, hurt.

I don't ignore them, because I know they're there, but I try to understand why they're there, then forgive them. Then, it becomes a habit. What I have achieved is some kind of tranquility, rather then feeling I have to fight back.

Yes, indeed. Without strong family support - things would be different.I now see myself in a positive light - it could have been so very different - the dark places linger still (like shadows), you know they're there - but you ignore them. All Thanks to the support you've been given.

Foxy

“I for one would like to know more about the 'diet - depression' connection. If you could explain more, I'd be grateful.”

I’m not sure if there’s a general link for everyone, but there’s certainly evidence to suggest that there is a link for those genetically susceptible. There’s a connection to diabetes, so anyone with a history of diabetes in the family may be more predisposed. And there’s a fifty percent chance that people with the predisposition will pass it on to their offspring. As well as genetics, lifestyle factors like stress, diet and fitness also contribute.

Instead of the pancreas producing no insulin as in diabetes, in people with hypoglycaemic disease it produces too much. When sugar is ingested, there’s an initial high spike in blood sugar levels followed by a drop to very low levels. This low level of glucose in the blood means that the brain becomes starved of glucose, which, along with water and oxygen, is essential to its proper functioning. This in turn leads to depression and as well memory impairment, poor concentration and lethargy. A preference for sweet food can be a further indicator of hypoglycaemia. Other symptoms can include anxiety, mood swings and insomnia. If left untreated, it can eventually lead to diabetes.

As well as suffering from the above symptoms, I was noticing I often had a slight inner tremor, which is what took me to the doctor in the first place. He mentioned “low blood sugar” so I came home and did an internet search which turned up a very good Australian website that I have found to be a really useful reference. http://www.hypoglycemia.asn.au/ A good starting point is the Nutrition-Behavioural Inventory listed under “Articles”. It’s a questionnaire for anyone who thinks they might fall into this category.

Foxy (cont)

I’ve cut out sugar, caffeine, alcohol and refined flour and eat smallish quantities of protein and low GI foods every 2 ½ to 3 hours to keep my blood sugar levels on an even keel. I know it sound s drastic but I found I soon adjusted and I wouldn’t go back to my old patterns of eating now for anything. I just feel so much better. At one stage I started to relapse and gradually my sense of wellness lessened so it really did bring home to me that I am on the right track with this.

This is probably far more than you wanted to know! But hopefully you and maybe others too find something useful amongst it. It’s been such a good news story for me but I am well aware that many people are sceptical.

Dear Bronwyn,

Thanks for the info. it was exactly what I was looking for.

I'll let you know if it helps - I'm sure it will.

Thanks again!