Comment by gfs78
6 years ago
Inuit and suicide:
From wikipedia: Among Inuit it is 6 to 11 times higher than the general population.
By 2007 in a population of 30,000 that is mainly Inuit, "40 per cent of deaths investigated by the coroner's office were suicides. Many of the 222 suicide victims were young, Inuit and male."
The article (written by women about the finding of some other woman) is a praise to the way females handle overt aggression, which is basically to shun it off (in this case, calmly).
Not saying that war-machine macho raising is a reasonable alternative, but male emasculation is not proving to be that useful either, as you can see in the massive shooting spreads, young male suicide rates, and the general passive-agressive tone of most male interactions these days.
Aggression should always be acted upon, just not in a retarded way.
BTW: I like answers where I'm literally given "the benefit of doubt". No, passive aggression is not a problem. At all..
This is one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever seen at the top of a HN thread. Are you seriously equating high Inuit suicide rate with the how men are raised in these communities? As if a 6-11 fold increase in suicide could possibly be explained away by "well, yeah, they aren't allowed to express their agression"
This is ridiculous, bordering on racist. Have you ever visited an Inuit community? The economic and social isolation, combined with extreme poverty, would be enough to drive many people to suicide. But. I'm not going to rebut your claims because they're just fallacious in their own right and this thread doesn't need to derail into an analysis of subjugated populations.
"The economic and social isolation, combined with extreme poverty, would be enough to drive many people to suicide"
Don't you think that, for young males, packing their things and moving to say Canada to fight for a better and less isolating life is a better handling of aggression that staying there until they suicide?
Why the passive route?
BTW, you labeled my post as racist and ridiculous (the last one twice). "This is one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever seen at the top of a HN thread" Those are the 2 most stronger arguments of your response. Why this unnecessary agression on your part?
You're conflating "the male experience" with " overt aggression", which I don't believe is true. Stoicism is incredibly "manly" (look at a caricature like Ron Swanson), but is the opposite of acting aggressively.
Most native american populations are experiencing similar high suicide rates, and they don't all share this non-aggression ethos.
Disagree with you. Parent seems to be conflating the modern male experience with anti-sensitivity. Expression of all emotions by males should be encouraged. I think the idolization of stoicism is detrimental to men's health. Men should be able to cry, be angry, express emotions within reasonable bounds. Bottling them up often leads to mental health problems later.
> Aggression should always be acted upon, just not in a retarded way.
I think you're being optimistic. Parent doesn't mention any emotion besides aggression. No line was drawn between men shooting up schools and men not being able to cry, it was totally focused on aggression.
They point out that male-emasculation is leading to shootings, not repression of all emotions - I mean, isn't the expression of crying "emasculating"? I don't see anything but aggression in the parent comment.
4 replies →