Short answer: we don't know.
Slightly longer answer: it also varies a lot between races of men, and between countries, so to unravel this completely you'd probably have to figure out how gender, race, and national culture interact, so don't hold your breath for a definitive answer anytime soon. Probably lots of B.S. answers coming your way soon, though.
I suppose it would be good to know if the ways of preventing and treating those at risk are different depending on gender. If not, why have proportional funding?
Men have to prove that they are "valuable" more often than women.
It depends on other factors, and is a generalisation, but i would say that a woman who is a "failure" may not have as gloomy prospects as if he were a man.
How? Women are under represented in the board room and there is a pay gap. We can argue about the causes, but I don’t think you could say that they are getting valued higher than men in the section of life that employment represents.
There is a category of women whose life-plan is to go to university, meet a smart boy there, marry, and become a stay-at-home mom.
There isn't really a category of men who go to university to find a spouse and then become a stay-at-home dad.
No judgement on either; but a man who is not successful professionally is generally seen as a deadbeat and has few prospects. A woman has additional options aside from professional success.
So, what your parent is suggesting is that men have fewer options, so the pressure is higher.
There's also a whole discussion that argues men are not attributed any intrinsic value; their value is all rooted in their success, in what they have accomplished. Women on the other hand, the argument goes, are always attributed intrinsic value. Even if they are not famous, or wealthy, or educated, they are still valued. I can't really pose that argument well though, just thought I'd mention it.
As a group, women tend to get a high percentage of their support through personal connections -- family, marriage -- based on a value of "caring" for them. If men don't prove themselves, they are much more likely to be kicked to the curb.
A very high percentage of street people are male. Women who are homeless are much more likely to crash with family or couch surf.
There are complex factors involved in both cases. Male homelessness is also, to some extent, an expression of agency that women often lack and the care that helps put limits on the bottom for women is also a contributing factor to the glass ceiling above.
But it is essentially accurate that the world cares less about men and pressures them to prove themselves or GTFO. (So some GTFO permanently by commiting suicide.)
that's not what the commenter is saying.. they're saying that the pressure on men to demonstrate value is higher than it is on women, which when you look at dating habits between men and women becomes obviously clear.
The statistics present an apparent paradox - women are significantly more likely to attempt suicide, but men are significantly more likely to die by suicide.
Much of the disparity appears to explained by the choice of method; men are much more likely to choose more lethal methods, leading to a greater number of deaths from a smaller number of attempts. Men seem to be more impulsive and progress more quickly from suicidal thoughts to suicidal behaviour.
> Of the attempters, 39.3% (3.5) endorsed the statement that they made a serious attempt, and it was only because of luck that they did not die; while 13.3% (2.1) endorsed the statement that they were serious, but knew the method was not foolproof; and the remaining 47.3% (3.9) endorsed the statement that their attempt was a cry for help, and they did not want to die.
It makes you wonder, why the gender discrepancy? Is this cultural? Social? Are women simply better at asking for help than men? Are men simply more stubborn than women?
I wonder what the numbers would look like if they were instead "number of people who have attempted suicide one or more times" which would seem to be a more meaningful measurement.
If you attempt suicide and succeed you're not going to do it again.
It wasn't even 100 years ago that women couldn't even vote, and equal rights for various minority groups took even longer to catch up. I would argue that those groups at that time must have justifiably felt significantly more "disposable", and yet I don't believe they had astronomical suicide rates to match. The same could be said for the entirety of the third world. Your argument doesn't really make sense in that context.
There is a men's mental health epidemic, I'm not trying to diminish that. Where things get tricky is when people lament other groups getting equal representation (politically, culturally, or especially economically) as the reason for it. That is an inherently racist or misogynistic political stance, even when coyly presented devoid of context, because it ultimately must advocate for a return to those inequalities.
It wasn’t even 120 years ago that non-wealthy non-landowners could vote either.
Women’s suffrage was a close flow on from universal suffrage.
It’s historically dishonest to imply that all men had the vote prior to women when that’s not even remotely close to the truth.
Likewise, I’m sure Western/European women felt mighty valuable when generations of me, right up until Vietnam in the 70s when men were still addressing involuntary conscription. Nothing says disposable like being shipped off to war by the boatload.
Is this a gender issue?
Is this a gender equality issue?