The other day I was doing some research for an upcoming article on terrorism, when I came across some disturbing statistics. I wanted to compare how many people died in the US by suicide with how many die from terrorism just to see if we’re allocating our “war” resources in the appropriate place. I have yet to get reasonable data as to how many people die in the US yearly as a result of terrorism, but from what information I’ve managed to accumulate, I think it averages out to something like 20 per year (divide the total number of deaths by terrorism by the number of years the US has been a nation).
Suicide, on the other hand, has a yearly total approaching 30,000. Now, that’s a staggering and terrifying number to be sure, but the bigger concern to me is that of that 30,000, 25,000 are men. I don’t know about you, but I think that in this day and age of extreme sensitivity to traditional gender roles and things of that nature, a discrepancy of this magnitude seems to warrant a closer look. I mean, what we basically have here is a terrible and tragic epidemic that affects 500% more men than it does women. Shouldn’t somebody be asking some questions? Why hasn’t this discrepancy been explored in the media? What are the current theories as to why so many more men chose to take their own lives than women?
Are there any theories?
Does anybody care?
Before you start to e-mail me with all your trite and dismissive explanations for this problem, let me first remind you of the currently accepted ground rules that our society has adopted to help us interpret statistical data without being prejudiced by race or gender.
In our effort to pursue a naive and completely superficial morality based on extreme political correctness, we have determined that all achievements in society must reflect the gender and racial percentages of our population. That is, if we have a culture where 50% of the people are men and 50% are women, then the total wealth must be divided 50-50 between them. If our culture is 40% Caucasian, 30% Black, 20% Hispanic, and 10% Chinese, then the wealthy must be distributed 40-30-20-10. This is what we believe, and what we are theoretically trying to live by. If there is a discrepancy between the population percentage and the gender or racial percentage, this is not an indicator that one group is superior than another (of course not you nazi, shame on you for even suggesting that), it is an indicator that our society is prejudiced and unfairly biased against another group.
Now, at first glance, that seems like a pretty reasonable system to adopt. The problem is that the way I have explained it here, and the way we follow it in society for that matter, is far too simplified to ever be an accurate model for predicting or determining behavior in real life. The major thing that this model overlooks is the basic axiom that although it is completely repugnant and unacceptable to suggest that one race or gender is universally superior to another, there is evidence that some races and genders are superior to others at certain tasks. For example, women carry babies to term a lot better than men do. Eskimos are better at making fur coats than Jamaicans.
The very worst part about this ridiculous belief system we indignantly enforce, is that when a major discrepancy comes up (like the Eskimo thing) there are a thousand built in excuses that are designed to deflect the reasonable thought and to protect the flawed belief system. It’s the same tactic that religious people use when you try to convince them to stop sending their hard earned cash into the overflowing coffers of whatever religious leader they follow.
Our society is of the opinion that women are treated as second citizens. What is the proof of this you ask? The proof lies in the fact that studies have shown that women make approximately 20% less then men with equivalent experience in similar jobs. The only reason that women are getting paid less, according to the belief system our society endorses, is because of prejudice. To even suggest that women might be getting less because they are in any way inferior at the job they do is completely sexist and reprehensible. Are you with me? The lack of pay has nothing to do with the women. If the delineation is not 50-50, then there is a major flaw in our society, and in this case, the flaw points towards a prejudice against women.
Based on the zealousness for which the ideal of equality is pursued, my question is this: Why hasn’t anybody mentioned the 500% discrepancy between male and female suicide rates?
Here’s another question: Do you think a 500% discrepancy would have been mentioned if it went the other way?
Now, let me just make the obvious problem lurking under the surface abundantly clear: You are not allowed to sit there and say that more men kill themselves because they are inherently aggressive. Our social belief system that is the basis for all the progress in equality that’s been made over the last 50 years (and there really have been advances, despite what I consider flaws in the system) are linked to the delineation based on percentage. The problem (according to our own belief system) cannot be men, the problem has to be society, to suggest otherwise undermines the foundation of modern feminism. I’m guessing that it’s not in your best interests to want to do that.
So, now that we have eliminated man-bashing as a cause for the suicide gap, we can turn our thoughts to more productive theories. Where should we start? What causes suicide? Stress, depression, feelings of loneliness and isolation, intense emotional pressure?
Is it the case that our society puts a burden of intense emotional pressure on men that is 500% greater than what is expected of women? Why would it do that? Because men have traditionally been the breadwinners perhaps? Could it be that society has been conditioned to groom men in a manner that is borderline psychological torture? Even if this has been done for what was a misplaced assessment of the best interests of the human race, shouldn’t we now act in the best interests of our currently higher held ideal: equality?
Now I don’t want to dismiss that 20% gap in pay as irrelevant, it’s just that the 500% gap is a far more pressing and cruel scenario. It’s my suspicion that the two are actually related. Perhaps if we, as a society, took greater care towards the mental and emotional well-being of men, the pay gap would disappear all by itself. Maybe the way to true gender equality is through a period of reverse chivalry. Woman can open doors for men, buy them flowers and expensive jewelry, invite them to dinner, and do any other number of a thousand little acts that are expected by women but never returned. In turn, men would become more pacified and accepting of their position in life, and therefore less aggressive in the workplace.
It seems to me that there are two currencies at work here just as there have been for all cultures all throughout history. There is the economic currency and there is the emotional currency. The evidence is irrefutable that men have been getting more of the economic currency, but this gap has more than been made up for with emotional benefits. It’s like a job where a woman makes 1.00 an hour but she has a company car, a company house, free cable, health insurance, dental, and a retirement plan. On the other hand, the man gets none of the additional benefits, and he makes 1.20 an hour.
Frankly, I’d trade the .20 an hour for all the rest, I wonder why the other side can’t see that? There must be some social prejudice at work that makes them incapable of realizing when they have a good thing going.
And one last thing, if you’re scoffing and indignant about this article at this point and thinking what a far superior person you are, let me just remind you of the facts. 25,000 men commit suicide every year, and adopting a policy of greater emotional support for men would certainly make a dent in that statistic. Furthermore, I bet it would take a bite out of wife-battering statistics and other crimes of frustration and loneliness. To take any other position is cruel and contrary to the ideals of humanity, not to mention equality.
But then again, I’ve put up with enough sanctimonious assholes selling their impractical platform with shameless demagoguery to know that the quest for power is a much more universally accepted currency than any higher ideal. I’m sick of charlatans dragging good concepts through the dirt and turning them into swearwords with misuse. Can we please, just for once, follow the path we claim to defend rather than only preach it?
30,000 people dead. If it helps, try to concentrate on only the 5,000 that are women.
The end