Another CRFR blog I wrote, this one in September 2012, reflecting on the media coverage following the publication of the Men, Suicide and Society report. For some reason (?!) I don’t think I ever submitted this, so nice to have somewhere to put it now. The experience of having academic work I’d spent months on interpreted for the mass media was certainly interesting, to say the least. The response I liked most was a column by Catherine Bennett in the Guardian, which you can see here.
On 20th September 2012 a report was published by the Samaritans titled Men, Suicide and Society. This report was co-authored by a group of economists, psychologists and sociologists, including myself and Julie Brownlie, a CRFR associated researcher. In the report, we set out to explore the reasons why men in midlife, from deprived backgrounds were more likely than any other group to complete suicide. The report was partly designed to highlight the greater risk faced by this group of men, in contrast to the more usual focus on suicide among younger men. Findings from the report were covered widely in the media, with articles appearing in the Telegraph, Guardian, Daily Mail, on the BBC, and on ITN.
My section of the report examined how social scientific work on masculinity might help to explain why this group of men are so vulnerable to suicide. However, the overall report was multi-faceted, developing a number of potentially important explanations including: psychological aspects; the impact of relationship breakdown; differences in emotional communication; and the impact of socio-economic disadvantage, recession and unemployment.
I drew together a range of qualitative research which had examined the particular experiences and accounts of men, often living in conditions of economic disadvantage. I argued that these accounts indicated that for men, in mid-life, from lower-socioeconomic groups, the constraints and rigours of hegemonic masculinity (or a ‘gold standard’ of masculinity as in the media-friendly press release) might be particularly damaging. I was more cautious as to why this might be the case, though I suggested that a lack of material and cultural resources might contribute. The group of men who are currently in mid-life, as argued in Julie Brownlie’s section of the report, might be especially vulnerable because a) they have lived through huge changes in the nature of the labour market (crudely, the move from ‘masculine’ heavy manufacture and industry, to ‘feminine’ service professions); and b) they have lived through a change in expectations about emotional literacy (caught between the stoicism of their fathers, and the –apparently – greater openness of their sons).
One issue that was overlooked in most (though not all) of the media coverage, was that the restrictive masculinities discussed in the report impact negatively on everyone, not just men in this particular social group. For instance, although we characterise young men as relatively more emotionally liberated, there is evidence that men and women of all ages have different attitudes towards emotional expression and help-seeking; and men of all ages are more likely to complete suicide.
The implications of the report are far-reaching, suggesting that restrictive gender identities in general should be challenged, among people of all ages. Boys and girls should be encouraged and supported to explore diverse ways of being and becoming men and women. While including gender awareness teaching on the curriculum in schools would be a good start, changes need to be made across society (2014 edit: so, not really asking for much then?!).