Reply #69: Interesting. [View All]

[TahitiNut]

I find it interesting that you pose the question "for men" and we have women jumping forward to 'answer' with greater self-assurance than men. Is that hubris? I dunno. :shrug:

To try and answer "why" is too often attacked as trying to justify a seemingly irrational act, an act that we must regard as outside the bounds of sanity and reason. Indeed, some attempt to answer "why" by peddling their antipathy for the object of some stereotype, never to miss an opportunity to grind an ax.

Some things are clear, at least from a 'normal' cultural context -- even though it's a fallacy to attempt to apply the general to the specific. In each specific instance, only a closer, preferably first-hand knowledge of the people involved can yield anything approaching understanding. (Understanding does NOT mean approval, nor is seeking understanding an attempt to defend.)

Generally speaking, men are more inclined to equate their very identity as a person in their role as Provider, (financial) Supporter, and final arbiter in the family. For many males in this culture, a loss of a job is the equivalent of loss of life ... a loss of one's very reason to exist and failure in their role as Provider. Men are not, generally speaking, as much encouraged to demonstrate the full spectrum of being a human being. Failures are punished. When folks know nothing else other than a marriage ended in divorce, they're far more inclined to attribute the failure to the male than the female. It's a cultural bias. Likewise, the financial 'health' of a household is, without any other information, generally the responsibility of the male -- because, as we all know, he gets paid more than a female of equivalent skill and experience. (Funny how that knife has two edges.)

Without an in-depth knowledge of the specific family dynamics, we can't say for sure whether the male was a "symptom bearer" who cracked up. But we could make that conjecture. Without an in-depth knowledge of the specific family dynamics, we can't say for sure whether the male was an abusive autocrat. But we could make that conjecture. Nor can we know whether he blamed their mere existence as the source of a feeling of failure and pressure to succeed - or whether it was used as an emotional bludgeon as marital stresses arose. But we could make that conjecture.

In the absence of specific knowledge, all manner of supposition and conjecture can form a gindstone upon which we sharpen an ax.

The tragedy is that engaging in blame and grinding an ax does nothing to forestall such events ... and the continued absence of mental health services and cultural supports for males that afford them the same ability to form emotional support groups around them that females seem generally more accustomed to doing will only ensure we see such appalling events again.