Male Mental Depression In Western Society
As fodder for this column I read an article that appeared in the Manchester Guardian written by Peter Barker, which indicated that an alarming number of English men suffer mental health problems, but most are too “macho†to seek help. The article indicated that men don’t step forward as women do with their feelings of depression; that they must learn to acknowledge their feelings and be willing to receive treatment. Barker reported that in order to de-stigmatize mental health problems a lot more work would have to be done.
The above paragraph alone provided more than enough fodder for the next one thousand words or so. It illustrated the feminine and material thinking of Western society mixed in with a generous amount of ignorance. Could it be that men do not step forward as women do with their feelings of depression because they are not women? There are many things that women don’t do that men do because they are not men. Of course this is a deep concept to a society that does not understand gender differences. What benefits will accrue if male mental depression becomes de-stigmatized? Unwed motherhood became de-stigmatized in the West and it has increased ten-fold in just two generations. Divorce became de-stigmatized and has now become the norm in Western society. De-stigmatizing the un-natural or harmful tends to make it popular and propagated; it definitely does not eliminate the condition. However, the West as we shall see, has no choice but to de-stigmatize all that is un-natural and immoral.
The feminine principle adapts and nurtures; it does not change things. Women adapt to their environment and nurture it; they do not change it. They call upon their husbands or the government to make change. Men do not adapt; they make change. Since the Western male has been emasculated he cannot make change; therefore, the conditions that were considered undesirable have now been de-stigmatized and made acceptable.
The Manchester Guardian article never addressed the question of why male mental depression exists, and therefore could not get to the next question of how to prevent it. The feminine psyche of Western civilization cannot deal with the unseen; therefore, it cannot deal with causes but only with effects. It expends considerable money and effort to treat male mental health but not a penny on how to prevent it.
Peter Barker didn’t even pose the question, are rates of male suicide in England high or low when compared to the rest of the world? In a previous blog I mentioned that Denmark and Sweden had the same rates of male suicide, which were 150 times that of Iraq, 200 times that of Syria, and 300 times that of Egypt; data that can easily be verified on the Internet Now when a nation has a national suicide rate two hundred to three hundred times that of other nations, one would expect that they would ask why.
High rates of male suicide, depression, and mental illness in England, and in the West in general have already become an acceptable norm. In 2005 The World Health Organization announced that the major health issue of England, the United States, and Canada is mental illness. This year the National Institute for Mental Health announced that 26% of all Americans are now classified as mentally ill. Western society is going insane; a viewpoint supported by its own statistics.
Whatever the issue, Western man is incapable of determining its cause. For instance, does the West ask why the Dogon tribe in Mali has never had a case of breast cancer or cervical cancer among its women, while American women have a breast cancer rate of ten percent? One would think that a malady that affects ten percent of the female population would entail some effort as to why this occurs, but the West is incapable of that type of thinking. It can only treat the symptom and de-stigmatize its victims. This is not to say that the West doesn’t look for material causes of maladies such as genes, viruses, or environmental factors, but never behavioral causes-never never. The female being the receptive entity is always the victim; hence a society with neutered men becomes a victim society. The West has become just that-a society of victims with no accountability for its issues.
If the West cannot locate a cause for its high rates of mental health problems among its men (they are even higher among its women) it at least might try to find a common factor in those societies that have low rates of mental illness, such as among Arabs, Muslims, African peoples relatively not influenced by the West, and various Pacific Island groups.
A common factor of these groupings is extended family. People raised in a strong extended family environment have a sense of security not known in the West; they also have a strong sense of purpose, a commonality of interest, an appreciation of the world of their creator, and a developed spiritual awareness.
Extended family can only develop in a patriarchal and polygamous environment-an environment natural to the universe. The West has not experienced extended family except that brought to them by Africans and Asians. It seems unable to grasp the concept of the patriarchal form of life and the many benefits that accrue form it, not the least of which is maintaining ones sanity. However, to maintain a patriarchal and polygamous society requires that men do the job that they were ordained to do: provide the environment and means that enable women to bring forth life and nurture it. Instead of a life of interdependence Western man fosters a life of independence, a life of self-centeredness and self-indulgence, a life that absolves him of responsibility and puts the government in charge of his environment. What Western man belatedly has come to realize is that with the government taking over manly responsibilities he becomes nothing more than a production worker and consumer.
Suicide and mental health problems occur when men feel powerless to control their environment. An illustration of this condition occurred ten years ago when I read an article in Caribbean Life that discussed the increasing rate of male suicide in the island-nation of Jamaica. The psychologists and social workers could not come up with any causative factors concerning the increase in male suicide. I called the editor and indicated I would be pleased to write an article giving an explanation. He gave me that opportunity and I explained that Jamaican men were no longer tribal chiefs or heads of family but merely production workers. If they lost their jobs they became nobodies. No man likes to be a nobody. A man has but three options in dealing with any condition: Adapt to it, change it, or leave it. The Jamaican man would not adapt to it, could not change it, therefore he left it. He committed suicide.
The action of the Jamaican man is being repeated throughout the Westernized world as governments neuter the influence of men and legitimize and de-stigmatize every form of un-natural behavior.
Note: It has been a couple of months since my last blog as there was a problem in my ability to enter and resond to comments that has only now been resolved. I did not mean to ignore any comments that were made. However, on reflection I decided that if people will not identify themselves when they comment I will not respond to them.
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
July 24th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Well said.
Government prevents men from being men. Women do also. A man who seeks to change the environment of his family for the better is more likely to suffer the ultimate demasculation — divorce. He suffers almost total loss of control and influence over his wife and children. Women are influenced by many factors now and their man is low on the list. He must not fight his low status on the list or else divorce is the likely outcome.
July 24th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
I’ve seen this in action. As a hiring manager, I see guy’s behavior turn pathetically bad during divorces. I’ve watched cheerful and productive guys turn into miserable nervous wretches through divorce. Usually, the ex-wives are happy with big alimony/child support checks and new husbands.
You wouldn’t believe the numbers of broken-hearted and angry guys I see. I’ve had to fire a few of them; with security guys at my side. It’s not pretty but it is happening every day. Again, you can’t blame the women, they are taking advantage of a legal system that practically begs them to leave good marriages just to cash out and make their exes wage slaves.
Many women have two ex husbands paying alimony and child support and they are married to a third man. They are rolling in money and feel like stars while three men pay their expensive upkeep. Either laws need to change or we need a new system. Too many men are angry, depressed or suicidal.
July 25th, 2006 at 7:34 am
I was going to comment on this article yesterday. Indeed, very well said.
There is one thing he commented on I gave much thought to last evening. This was men have been turned into consumers. This in-itself has to be a large problem for all of us. We are a hunting beast by nature. Not gatherers.
I think this is where many people (men) are falling into the trap of trying to be the “best consumer” out of our natural competitiveness.
Everyone either knows, or has seen exactly what I’m talking about. They guy that has to have not only everything, but the absolute “best” of that thing; which is everything.
I’m not saying its wrong to have nice things, but it is wrong to have everything. I was going to provide a personal example but it came across as bragging. In short, over the last year I have given extensive thought and energy into simplifying my life and I could not be happier.
Here is a quote that really hits home on this:
“Being without some of the things you want is an indispensable part of happiness” – Bertrand Russell
July 25th, 2006 at 7:35 am
“an alarming number of English men suffer mental health problems, but most are too “macho†to seek help.â€
Like everything else we debate, whoever defines the terms wins the argument. With medical professionals and psychologists defining the terms “depression†is a personal problem of your nervous system slowing down and they want you to go to them for treatment, Prozac or expensive pep talks; of course that is how they get rich. You have a better chance of healing without their treatment than with it. This profession, will take another two hundred years before they are helping more people than they harm; “depression: Psychology, a psychiatric disorder characterized by an inability to concentrate, insomnia, loss of appetite, anhedonia, feelings of extreme sadness, guilt, helplessness and hopelessness, and thoughts of death. Also called clinical depression “
We must stop using the term “depression†and insist on the term “despair†because it takes the discussion out of the clinical paradigm and more accurately explains what men are experiencing; “despair: To be overcome by a sense of futility or defeat. Complete loss of hope.†If a cultural anthropologist were studying a culture like some Native American tribes who are in “despair†they have been stripped of their culture, don’t want to live like us, and have turned to chemical dependency. Now, in western society in general, people who hate what we are, have been getting rich by intentionally stripping western society of every thing that brings meaning to us. They are clueless to the danger of the west becoming like Russia. As long as they can get rich treating people with “depression†it helps their self-esteem and self-actualization to be trying to help people overcome their “depression,†but the psychology they use is a major contributor to the breakdown.
The reason men don’t seek help is not because they are too “macho†but rather because they are not in “depression†they art in “despair.†They don’t want help. They have been defeated in the culture wars and have no intention of changing to become like the people they have been fighting against, and don’t want to continue to live in a society that has been intentionally stripped of all the things that gave it meaning.
Definitions from American Heritage
July 25th, 2006 at 9:20 am
chas discusses dispair in a very good explanation, However, I suggest that a better description would be oppression.
July 25th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Notice to Editor or Elder George
I submitted this email to the MND editor but haven’t received a response yet. After reading this excellent post by Elder George I felt that my following letter would be quite relevant.
Sincerely,
GL
========================================
An Open Letter to the Men’s Movement
To the Leaders and Participants of the Men’s Movement
For some time now I’ve taken an interest in the various elements of the Men’s Movement and have wanted to advocate a different line of thinking that I believe will significantly advance the well being of Western men everywhere.
Most of us intimately know the abyss of pain that comes with the dissolution of a marriage. A pain that is often compounded with the seperation of children from our active presence. There is no doubt to most of us that a deeply imbalanced
society has delivered a cruel irony that shreds at the very purpose we men have in elevating society itself through the raising of our families.
The road to happiness is further obstructed when we as men try to establish meaningful relationships with women. However noble our pursuit we are still faced with degraded options, toxic behaviors and jaded material expectations.
Often all available roads lead to a broken heart that cannot easily be repaired.
In the modern women that surround us we unfortunately face an adversary that we
actually want to love. However because that desire is turned against us, to pursue them romantically would likely spell our own demise. In the absence of trust.. in the absence of support.. in the absence of sacrifice.. we are faced with a grim calculus of competing interests. And like it or not.. for the sake of ourselves, for our future progeny, and for the very future of society itself we must change this equation.
The only way to do this is to first understand it’s underlying cause which I have known to be simple economics. Not the economics of money or finance but the more basic economics of supply and demand.
Men qualified to be successful husbands vs. women qualified to be successful wives.
When our own society starts to promote the very idea that being a wife is undesirable then the number of women (supply) who are even willing to consider the responsibilities of marriage falls dramatically and this leads to a vicious cycle of demand on the part of men that can never be met though traditional means.
If we realize the cause then the solution becomes obvious in that we should open up every man’s range of choices outside of the traditional domestic domain. For some this may mean looking towards Asia or South America while for many others like myself that path lead to the beautiful and traditional women of Russia and the FSU.
At the heart of most Men’s issues are problems surrounding women. Our own emotional health is heavily dependent on our ability to be naturally loved and nourished with women who are loving supporters and not competitors. Because of this I believe that the Men’s Movement should transition it’s primary advocacy more towards the expansion of relationship choices that we can all benefit from.
It is well known that despair comes from a feeling of helplessness in the face of long term problems while confidence comes from the realization of positive choices ahead. If we again take the economics approach and “open up the market†of options available to us then the anti-male hostility that is so present in our time will dissipate with the wind in short order.
As we all know it takes two to tango but if we collectively select a newer and better partner then someone will be embarassingly left alone on the dance floor to hold their own handbag full of poison.
It’s clear that the existing areas of focus that the Men’s Movement promotes will still remain critically important for the foreseeable future. However the stark warning that I issue is that we do not use the past history of the Women’s movement with it’s never ending focus on victim-hood as a model for our own. Instead we can focus on actual solutions that bring real joy and strength for our future.
Or in the humorous words of one of my friends,
“We can gaze at our belly or we can look towards the sky..â€
Gentlemen thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
The Editor
Russian Women the real truth – from a man who actually lives there
http://russianwomen.wordpress.com/
July 25th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
[...] Rejoice, all, for Elder George is back to guide us. Today he lets us in on a little secret about men and depression – there is no such thing as a depressed man. There are only men who are all discombobulated because the women, children and elderly no longer have to gaze at them adoringly and prop up thier ego. The only solution is to model ourselves after Syria. Perfect, perfect Syria. The article indicated that men don’t step forward as women do with their feelings of depression; that they must learn to acknowledge their feelings and be willing to receive treatment. Barker reported that in order to de-stigmatize mental health problems a lot more work would have to be done. [...]
July 25th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
hey! i’m sure it had nothing to do with the economic dive that jamaica went through at the time, right? it’s not poverty! it’s males not being worshipped, GEEEEEZ.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Hi,
I feel I need to make a few comments on this subject (as woeful as my writing is). What has man’s traditional role been? Protector and Provider. Men have provided for thier families with working long hours and dangerous jobs. They have gone to war for thier families.
Nowadays these roles have been destroyed. Women are independant and don’t want protection from men as that would be ’sexist’. Men don’t have to provide for their families as women have also begun careers.
These two factors wouldn’t be so destructive except that we men also place those value on ourselves. We will not accept new roles as we are taught that protector and provider is what we are supposed to do.
Add on top of this the male bashing going on in today’s society. Men are batters (though many research studies have proven women are just as violent), Men oppress women, Men are insenstive, sexual harrassers, ect. The current social climate has told men that thier competitive and sometimes aggressive tendencies are wrong.
Young boys in school are falling behind thier female counterparts.. Why? Because school is now about sitting still, busywork, and no wrong answer lessons. All of which go towards girls but leave boys disillusioned. If a boy is energetic he is said to have AD and is medicated so he can sit still.
Finally, we come to gender feminism. This concept has such a strong hold on society that many cannot voice thier opinions. Men have been somewhat castrated. They cannot speak out against the inequal treatment they recieve in courts. If a man does speak out he is labeled a sexist or bigot.
And you wonder why men are depressed, despair, or are generally feeling bad. We have lost all of what makes a man, a man. We cannot effect the government in some areas, we cannot compete, we are told our actions are wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated.
Now if you move on to marriage that is a vertiable MINEFIELD of trouble. Your wife divorces you, takes the house, the car, the kids, half your assets, demands alimony and child support. Now that man has lost his children (95% of non-joint custody cases the woman gets custody). Has half of his take home pay going to the ex. Where is the incentive for a man to marry???
Sorry this has run so long, but I kinda got going and kept going.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
also I apologize for any spelling or grammitcal errors I have made.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:18 am
To snootfish,
If government prevents menfrom being men then men need tochange the government. The only power they have is the power we let them have. They do what they do because of the passiveness of Western man. He created a monster that is eliminating him.
If you’re interested in making stay in touch.
E.G.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:22 am
To Bethesda-Paul,
We do need a new system and those in power are not about to enact it. Now what are you willing to do to make thathappen?
E.G.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:29 am
To ggreen,
Thanks for your coments. We have been trained to be a consumer society. That is an expression of the feminine materialistic thinking of Western society. National well-being is measured by gross domestic product.
I’ll send more to you e-mail address.
Thanks again
E.G.
July 28th, 2006 at 3:46 am
[...] So, I was sliding down one of the many, many tubes of the Internet the other day, wishing it could be more like a dump truck, when I came across this brilliant article by a fellow named “Elder George”. Well, a man with a name like that, I thought, has to be wise and venerable, and is totally not some going-on-forty-year-old misogynist still living in his mother’s basement and resenting her for his various ineptitudes. Turns out I was right: This man is brilliant, a modern-day sage to lead us through these dark times, when men stand on the verge of expressing emotions instead of bottling them up into a thick, viscous, hearty rage to be unleashed at random upon loved ones and inanimate objects. [...]
November 3rd, 2006 at 8:54 pm
So it looks you do not belive very much into genetical causes
September 25th, 2008 at 9:28 am
As interesting as this insight is (it is not inconceivable to me that changing societal roles may contribute to increasing rates of suicide and depression), I do find some of the logic a bit lacking. For example, in one paragraph you bemoan the rise of divorce and unwed motherhood, but in the next you state rather flatly and without statistical evidence to back you that women rely upon their husbands to make change. If single womanhood is becoming increasingly common, then how is it possible that women rely upon their husbands to make change? And if a changing, feminizing society is causing men to be depressed, wouldn’t men then have to be the agents of that change? Furthermore, your statement that “Extended family can only develop in a patriarchal and polygamous environment-an environment natural to the universe,” is painted with a ridiculously broad stroke. How can one seriously claim any one human institution the “natural environment of the universe?” I thought we were discussing England’s rising rate of male depression, not the natural environment of the universe! I think your argument would hold a lot more water if you narrowed its scope a little bit.