The male suicides: how social perfectionism kills

You may be right about that, but there are plenty of societies worldwide that have not had the demonization of all things male, which show a similar pattern in suicides.

The only exceptions seem to be Bangladesh and China. This indicates that, whilst it would be nice to have a simple one-size fits all reason for male suicides pretty much globally being higher than female, the picture is somewhat more complex than "We have been demonizing all things male".

Men aren't killing themselves because nobody celebrates fathers day. And they're not killing themselves because sitcom dads are morons. They're killing themselves because they feel they have failed the people around them, and can't live with the shame. This pressure to succeed was not invented by feminists, and has existed for many years. Both women and men unconsciously perpetuate a toxic idea of masculinity which keeps men from seeking help,

This masculinity is the cause of your other problems too:

Nobody celebrates father's day because according to society's version of masculinity, men aren't allowed to be sentimental. Getting cards and flowers isn't exactly a manly thing.

Male victims of statutory rape are rarely considered to be victims, because according to our twisted view of masculinity, males are always supposed to want sex. Everytime a female teacher is caught having sex with an underage male student, someone jokes that the young student "scored a hot babe" or something to that effect.

Men on TV are bumbling idiots because men are the primary audience for these shows. The protagonists are always average, unremakable men so that the average man can identify with them. The women characters are always sharp witted and shrewd because they are the antagonists.

A result of the weapon of choice in domestic abuse. Men favor fists, while women favor improvised weapons (the legal term as in sticks, stones, or whatever is reachable).

Weapons in untrained hands do generally less damage than fists, so men in general cause more damage in fights. However, if the weapon do cause damage, that damage has a higher risk of being major.

So which one is more server, a untrained knife wielding attacker or someone going for you with their fists. The legal system has one view, the statistics has one.

Every single feminist I know encourages me to open up, and supports me when I do. You need to know better feminists.

Since you're saying it without saying it, let's simplify and summarize:

> furthermore, society interprets "men" as the top (physically, socially, financially) 20% of men, the men who make a real dent in the world and who override the general perception of masculinity in society. the high achievers, the genetically gifted, the powerful. the stereotypical 'man'.

I.e. Alpha males. Women are biologically programmed to go for them, and that's a good thing for our society's fitness.

> however, the truth is most men aren't that archetype. most men are workhorse peons that get the shit end of the deal, having to endure living a modern subsistence lifestyle that consists of cheap housing, cheap food, cheap relationships, cheap labor.

I.e. Beta males. Sounds awful to be one right? But by definition they are the majority.

Now here's where it gets interesting. The "3 M's" as you mention, i.e. marriage, is a social construct used to incentivize Beta males to be productive. Marriage attempts to create an artificial 50/50 male/female pairing so that the vast majority of men have incentives to be productive and contribute towards society.

Societies which did not have this feature did not succeed throughout history.

Now we reach an interesting point in the 21st century, where by we have so much abundance that female needs are becoming decoupled. Note what I said above: females naturally seek the top of men, but society pressures them to consummate with average men to achieve 50/50. This deal was easier to sell in the past because women generally needed male providers to do the things they wanted: survive comfortably, start a family, etc.

Guess what? That is no longer so. Just read the original story: the now ex-wife has everything she needs, husband not included. His "meaning of life" was reduced to nothing. I'm not saying he's a victim though: I believe everyone has the responsibility to examine the incentives for or against them, understand the nature of those they interact with, and act accordingly. Social conditioning prepared him for the life of clueless provider though, and that sure didn't help him.

What women are encouraged to do now is roughly as follows. Chase those top X% Alpha men during their youth, when their beauty allows for it. Two options are possible: best case scenario, lock down the high value man. Fat chance though, with female sexual liberation, these men can just keep having an abundance of relationships with other young and pretty girls.

The other option is more common for women: hit about 30, coupled with a decline in beauty (which IMO is more linked to career stresses than the age) and then decide to "settle down" with a more provider type. Maybe he even has the "dad bod". I figure that must be a good marker for women to look for around this time, so it makes sense they'd encourage it.

Imagine this for a second. You eat gourmet food for 10 years straight, and then suddenly you have to switch to microwave TV dinners. Would you feel a little resentment? Would you ever have cravings for your previous diet?

In summary, when it comes to happiness and relationships, it's very important to understand the desires and incentives of others, as well as that of your environment. This is also the only way to minimize your exposure to tragedy.