Lived Experience Forum

[MDT]

no sweat @Sophia1 @periwinklepixie

Just airing some ideas here. Happy to hear suggestions

[Sophia1]

Thank you @MDT 

I will just bow out and leave you to discuss with Henry at a different level.

[periwinklepixie]

Well it appears I've made a big old mess of this one. 😛 @MDT @Sophia1 @HenryX @Former-Member @Historylover  Maybe it's that medication hangover I get in the mornings! 

It seems that we don't actually want a different thread, which I am happy to support. I would like to clarify my suggestion came from a misinterpretation of a post and a desire to make sure everyone felt like their perspectives were valued and we weren't prioritising any one perspective over another. But if everyone feels we can continue the conversaton here I might get us back on track. 

The article @MDT shared referenced how work affects our self worth and can lead to suicidality. I know for me, the times I was unemployed defintley made me feel suicidal. But at the same time working jobs I've hated has made me feel the same. Has this been a thread for others I wonder? Does employment influence your mental health and suicidality?

I also noticed a few of you bring up generational differences. This is a very interesting one. Each generation faces it's own challenges whilst sometimes having a lot more in common than we think. How do you think your generation affects your experiences around mental health?

Gender is also an interesting one. Each gender comes with it's own expectations and social norms. For men, this may being the provider. For women, it may be the nurturer, for others who identify as neither it may be about not fitting in. Either way judgement feels like a common theme. Do you think societies judgements play a big role in mental health and suicidaliy? Or perhaps is it more our judgeemnts of ourselves against these ideas?

Keep the great conversation going, gang! Thanks for letting me know I wasn't quite getting it right. I really appreciate it. 
- periwinklepixie

[Sophia1]

@periwinklepixie 

I think that your support is great..

It is so easy to misinterpret..misunderstand people's replies on the forums..

It happens to me all of the time..

My idea was to start a new thread with a title around the subject that most struggle talking about..so easy to find when searched by others..this to be decided by those who monitor threads and create discussions..

Place the thread in a safe space monitored by again a moderator or peer support worker...allowing those who write on it to feel safe..

To include all as subject relates to all...

Keep this thread as is..

a great idea by Hams and can follow on as Hams and others respond to the article.

Therefore not taking anything away from those who have continued the discussion with Hams.

Hopefully I have explained myself better now..

[HenryX]

Hello @Historylover 

Since you have addressed me, personally, twice in your post, which at the time of this post was 14 hours previous, I assume that I may have the right of reply, to which you may, of course, respond, or not, as you wish.

"

Your post reads:

"@HenryX — perhaps I didn't put it as well as I might have. I think the picture set the tone — like the cover of a novel, and lacking in a sense of 'true connection' to such a serious matter. 

It might have been more accurate to have said that, for me, it lacked a sense of true empathy from the author — like he regarded the man, and the subject, to be merely an object for study.  He didn't actually emotionally connect to it. 

That's the way it affected me and, as always, responses are subjective. I don't wish to comment further, @HenryX."

"

My initial response to the observations about empathy, and references to novel and fiction, I believe stand on their own merits, therefore I feel that I have no need to repeat them.

"

The intent and purpose of the article was not, I believe, intended, nor did it need to convey empathy to achieve its purpose. It was to provide information and used, what I believe, was a suitable and suitably personalised example to connect the reader to the topic. Without that example, the flesh of the material offered, would indeed, have been very dry and difficult to convey, in such a way as to provide any connection with a lay audience, to whom it was directed.

"

If it is a matter of journalistic style that is in question, I do not think that that debate should detract from the essence of the material offered. It is indeed, a very different topic. As would be a debate about the artist's presentation of the figure and style of painting in the portrait or painting that is part of the article. I believe that neither of those topics of journalistic or artistic style add anything to the topic and conversation that the article is intended to elicit.

"

The picture presented at the beginning of the article,

"The Suicide by Édouard Manet 1877-81. (Photo: Public Domain)"

was certainly intended to attract the attention of an audience who may not otherwise have been inclined to read an article entitled

"Why Men {self-inflict death on} Themselves

{words changed from those used in the article for compliance with forum guidelines.}

You have, as you indicated, the right to offer no further comment. However, it is my belief that everyone else has the right to continue debate, and respond in an appropriate manner, to any other comments offered for consideration.

Sincerely

@HenryX 

[HenryX]

Hello  @MDT 

I really enjoyed reading your post of about 10 hours ago beginning:

"My reason for posting this article was really quite simple - I read it with interest and wanted to share it.".......

That post, of 10 hrs ago was, to me, interesting, informative, enquiring, and expressed awareness of fundamentals.

I tend to gloss over a lot of the one sentance repartie that is exchanged on many threads. However, in this thread, I have seen a more expansive and responsive you, which I say with humility, I am pleased to see.

Thank you  

With My Very Best Wishes

@HenryX 

[Anastasia]

Hello @MDT 

Thank you for sharing such an important and necessary topic to discuss. 

I'm always interested in learning perspectives around WHY...

For me the topic itself is the focus rather than the article. I believe the more we talk about this "pandemic", because that's what it is sadly...waaay more casualties than Covid, the more we will be aware of when someone needs help. I wasn't, and I nearly lost my son. I live in fear it may still happen. We talk now though, and I am very aware of the signs now.

So dear Hams, thank you...let's not stop talking here and irl...lets cause an avalanche so that eventually society sits up and takes notice and change comes 🙏 

[Anastasia]

Thank you @HenryX for your thumbs up...this is a topic I am passionate about doing what I can in my lifetime to bring about change. I'll get off my soap box now 🙏

[HenryX]

Hi  @Anastasia 

My pleasure, Anastasia. As I've indicated, I have been active in this area for many years.

Your passion for development and progress in this area is also shared by me.

Soap boxes have had a bad wrap for a long time, but they serve a useful purpose.

Assuming the speaker is projecting a clear message,

"Clear messages, projected further"

With Best Wishes

@HenryX 

[chibam]

@MDT  Wow.

I only got a chance to finish reading that (very long) article tonight. I didn't want to respond until I'd read it all. And in the meantime, a robust thread - even more complex then the source material - has grown here.

I'll start by exclusively addressing the original article.

TBH, I think it got more wrong then it got right - but it did get a lot of stuff right. As @Historylover alluded to,

@Historylover wrote:

..and lacking in a sense of 'true connection' to such a serious matter. 

It might have been more accurate to have said that, for me, it lacked a sense of true empathy from the author — like he regarded the man, and the subject, to be merely an object for study.  He didn't actually emotionally connect to it.

For one thing, the author seems to saddle most of man's problems as being in his own head. He talks about "social perfectionism" as if it's some delusion that men suffer - that, in reality, there are absolutely no negative reprecussions for failing to meet society's expectations.

Seriously?

I just don't know what to say to that, aside from a word that ryhmes with 'bullspit'.

Of course people judge you if you don't measure up, and of course that often has immense costs to your quality of life! The article even seems to condtradict itself in it's section about Korea, where it admits that people who don't "measure up" lose all hope of acquiring lives that are worth living in that country!

The frustrating thing is, that in his lengthy discussion about those broken "social perfectionists", the author gets really close to address matters that are immensely pertinant to the subject of male suicides: namely, that the world does substandardly treat people who don't "measure up", and what we can do to correct that so that their lack of achievements doesn't produce undesirable knock-on effects.

Which leads me to my second major qualm about the article: it's complete misrepresentation of the value of one's assets (n.b. not just material goods, but anything that enriches one's life).

The article seems to treat a man's assets as generic status indicators, instead of important fixtures that fill crucial roles in giving life value.

Take, for example, the article's handling of the man's wife betraying him and eventually leaving him. The article makes that all about social standing - as if the man was a soldier, and the leaving of the wife equated to him being stripped of his "I have a wife" badge. D'oh the shame of it all!

It never indulges the idea that a loving wife has an immense effect upon a husband's life experiance. It never acknowledges the fact having a wife by your side signficantly changes the answer to the question: "what is my life?", and therefore has immense ramifications upon the question: "Is my life worth prolonging?" You have no choice but to completely reassess your answer to that question, because you are now talking about a completely differant life!

The same goes for any number of other assets that give life value. They aren't just status symbols! They define what life is, and therefore directly impact the overall value of life! As far as I can see, the article has no respect for that.

Thirdly, I read somewhere in the article (I can't seem to find it now ) a bit that basically undermines the impact that our own presence has upon the world around us. The tone was like: "Silly, paranoid, deluded men - they worry about how others feel about them...They shouldn't." Which is a really shortsighted view, because the impact that they have on other people's lives is immensely relevant to the question of whether or not suicide is a good idea.

Let's say I know 100 people, and 95 of them are, in some way or another, unpleasant to know. So, what happens when I start asking myself whether or not I should commit suicide?

"What will happen when I die?"

"Well, I'll never have to endure any of those 95 pain-in-the-asses I know ever again, so that's a big relief!"

"Okay, but is there any downside?"

"Well, there are those other 5 I know who aren't too bad... I'll never get to hang out with them ever again."

"Okay. So is has enjoying the company of that good 5 been worth the agony of putting up with that other 95?"

"Hell no!"

So, if we are exploring the question of why men commit suicide, the next question we need to ask is why 95 of those people make death look attractive. And I would wager that a major factor in that answer will be people not caring about the impact they have upon other peoples' lives.

So, if we want to make life more attractive then suicide, we need to nurture a culture were people are much more inclined to be pleasurable to be around. We need more individuals who make the people around them think: "If surviving another year means getting to spend more time with Jim, then that's a pretty good endorsement for survival!" And if we want to live in an environment that is rich with people who incentivize us to live, then we likewise have a responsibility to be individuals who make life better to experiance.

It is not foolish to care what others think about us, it is sensible. Because by being the sort of person who ecokes admiration from others, you build a society that is actually worth living in.

I also had a few issues with some of the articles' other lesser misrepresentations of men and women (and their experiances)... but I've waffled on far too long already.

I might see now about engaging with the discussion in this thread... or I might hold off until tomorrow... I'll see.