Male Suicide: Why Are Men Leaving? Part II

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss glares back into you.”¹ — Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)

By John Davis: Part II - Clinical Depression in Men

In the first article in this series, we gained a brief view of the the problem of Men committing suicide in our modern age. We pointed to some of the most important factors that cause suicide — clinical depression, and willful indifference to men committing suicide. We also discussed how society’s misandry (hatred of men) accelerates the causes of suicide in men.

Our institutions are designed to abandon men and encourage them to die

In this second part, we are going to take a look at some of the science that applies to men committing suicide.

Clinical Depression — The Abyss

Suicide is rarely a rational choice. Some cultures (such as the Samurai) adopted suicide as a rational choice in some circumstances. However, in modern times, most suicide in Men is a result of a medical condition known as “clinical depression.”

Clinical depression is a medical condition. Two components contribute to clinical depression. The first involves biological conditions in men that make men vulnerable to clinical depression. For example, we know that, currently, the largest number of men committing suicide are white men in their mid fifties to early sixties. A biological factor that is probably causing that group to be vulnerable to clinical depression, and suicide, is the diminishing amount of testosterone that occurs in men who are aging. Another biological factor in clinical depression, and suicide in men, involves genetic factors which can make some men, of some races, more pre-disposed to suffer clinical depression than others.

In addition to biological factors that cause depression, there are psychological factors that are also causes. Someone who is constantly abused by his status in a culture, for instance, can develop clinical depression. A man who has had a run of “bad luck” in employment, or relationships, or in any area of life endeavors, can become “clinically depressed” as a result of consistent feelings of despondency and hopelessness.

Clinical depression is different from “depression,” or “sadness,” or “grief,” or “feeling down.” Clinical depression is an actual physical condition, involving the brain, central nervous system and a man’s entire body. Clinical depression usually requires medical intervention to reverse a complex cycle of despondency and emotional pain causing physical changes. Those same physical changes in the body generate even more emotional pain, despondency and despair in a man.

The pain of clinical depression in its victims is very real. It is physical, as well as emotional, and, can become so devastating that it compels a man to end his life as the only means of escaping its seemingly endless torment.

Cultural Causes of Clinical Depression –

If we examine our current gynocentric culture, we can find the psychological factors that are contributing to clinical depression in men.

Our most reliable, objective indicator, is the timing at which the disparity in suicide, between men and women, began to skyrocket. The following graph shows that the disparity arose at about the same time that feminism and gynocentrism began its domination of our culture.

The Gender Suicide Gap coincides with the onset of Feminism
in our institutions

In analyzing a graph like this, we cannot absolutely conclude that the skyrocketing suicide rate of men, occurring at the same time as the rise of feminism and gynocentrism, was caused by feminism and gynocentrism. However, there are many observations about the rise of feminism that argue, by themselves, that the rise of feminism and gynocentrism is the cause of men committing suicide at a much greater rate than women.

Feminism began in the benign disguise of creating “equality” for women. With 20/20 hindsight, however, we can see that feminism was something else.

Gender roles in cultures developed over thousands of years. Those roles were often necessitated by the harsh realities of survival. They represented a “division of labor” between the genders based upon their respective strong and weak points.

With the advent of the industrial revolution, many of those gender roles, and the necessity for them, began to change. Women sought changes, for their own gratification, to a social contract that was thousands of years old.

Our culture immediately saw the profit available for advancing women’s interests [at the expense of men]. Flooding the market with women workers would automatically lower the cost and demand for labor. Madison avenue (the mainstream media) astutely recognized that although men earned money in our economy, the social contract called for women to control that money. Women were, therefore, targeted by corporate interests as being superior to men for purposes of corporate profit. Promoting feminism and gynocentrism then became an obsession with corporate America (and other countries imitating American corporate rule) and richly rewarded all businesses that pandered to the principles of feminism and gynocentrism.

This obsession is about profit . . . . It has nothing to do with “gender equality” except as a deceitful narrative.

With heavy, and organized support, from all institutions that were dependent on the profits of multi-nationals seeking profits from gynocentrism, our culture began to shame, demean, accuse and hate men and masculinity. Feminism, from the beginning, as well as those who profit from it, recognized that it was easy to manipulate voters and consumers, and men, through attacks on men and masculinity.

What should have been a rational re-negotiation of gender roles, under the social contract governing our civilization, became an all out war on men and masculinity, for profit, based on hate.

The Rise of the Feminist State — Monsters & the Abyss

This campaign of hate gave rise in Western cultures to a Feminist State.²

“The Feminist State” can best be described as a profit-motivated, concerted effort on the part of government, media, religion and multi-national corporations, to engage in the open hatred of men. At the same time, the “feminist state” justifies the hatred, and, uses it as a premise upon which to grant women special privileges, at the expense of men.

To persuade voters and consumers and “leaders” to adopt this campaign of hatred of men and masculinity, it was necessary for a wide, and relentless, dissemination of hateful media that demonized men, degraded men, and ultimately condemned men for their feelings, needs, historical accomplishments, and their masculine essence.

For fifty years, our culture, through mass media, has relentlessly portrayed men as worthless, rapists, wife beaters, undeserving, violent criminals, exploiters of women, child molesters, etc., etc., etc. All of this demonizing hate came from medieval stereotypes that the mass media perpetuated in its campaign of unrestrained misandry.

Is it any wonder that the skyrocketing rates of male suicide coincide with the onset of the feminist state, and, the hate campaign it inspired?

The “Society for Cutting up Men” has now become institutionalized in Western Culture and pervades all of our institutions

This campaign of mass propaganda, relentlessly pressed over a period of a half of a century, was psychological warfare on men. This misandry provided the psychological component to clinical depression that drove countless hundreds of thousands of men to suicide over that time.

Was this intentional “gender cleansing” on the part of the feminist state? At the very least the feminist state was, and remains, willfully blind to its war on men and the casualties.

In the next part of this series, we will take a look at Robin Williams, and, how the feminist state, and its hatred of men, caused the suicide of a gentle, loving man whose talent graced the lives of everyone he touched.

References:

[1] Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.” — Aph. 146

[2] The term: “feminist state,” was first coined by Prof. Linda Kelly in her law review article from 2003. Kelly, Linda, “Disabling The Definition of Domestic Abuse: How Women Batter Men And The Role of The Feminist State,” 30 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 790, 824 (2003).

Source