Tim Lott thinks Women Benefit from Oppression (Warning: Discussion of Suicide)

I was in two minds about writing this post, but I think I will.

In May this year, Anna Mansfield killed herself. She was 44, and suffering from depression, but her family were unaware she was considering suicide, and it seems her doctor did not realise either. Despite having multiple family ties, she seems to have suffered in silence. At his daughter’s funeral, Michael Mansfield addressed this directly:

“You all know that Anna committed suicide and I feel very strongly that there’s a taboo about this and people don’t talk about it. I’ve only discovered [this] by talking about it myself. And as soon as I do, then others say, ‘Oh, funny you should say that: my brother, my sister, my father, my mother…”

He has since begun to advocate changes in the social and medical treatment of depression and suicide, including setting up a new forum, Silence on Suicide (SOS), with the aim of breaking this taboo.

Yet, the reporting around this tragedy has had its odd moments. The Telegraph,for example, chose to run a story with the remarkably insensitive headline ‘Michael Mansfield QC’s Most Difficult Case’ – as if a grieving father can only relate to his daughter’s death in a cold, quasi-professional way. Other reports dwelt at length on Anna Mansfield’s children, quoting her reported feelings of guilt at length and subtly reinforcing them by describing her husband as ‘left behind’.

And then the subtitle of Tim Lott’s latest piece in the Guardian caught my eye: “Michael Mansfield’s campaign to break the silence around suicidal thoughts is vital for isolated men.”

Insensitive? Possibly. But not unexpected.

Suicide is one of those tragedies very, very frequently cited in discussions about feminism.In 2013, 6233 people killed themselves in the UK – and almost four times as many men as women. Far more men than women kill themselves, and this is, disturbingly, a consistent pattern. Often, it’s suggested that this represents either an innate, or a conditioned, emotional superiority amongst women: women are allowed to show their emotions more; women are better at seeking help; it’s more acceptable for women to show that they’re ‘weak’; women have better support networks. The subtext is that women should wake up and recognise how lucky they are, how damaging feminism is, as if toxic masculinity – masculinity valorising the suppression of emotion – isn’t something feminists have been criticising for years.

But there’s a more immediate issue here. Avoiding suicide isn’t ‘weak’, any more than killing yourself is ‘strong’. And women who kill themselves aren’t necessarily lacking in ‘support networks’ – like Anna Mansfield, whose father had planned to meet her shortly after her death to discuss her depression.

I read on: the soundbite chosen to accompany the piece, in bold in the sidebar, read: “Childbirth and the oppression women have suffered have bonded them in a way that most men have denied themselves.” 

Wow.

Let’s take a minute here to remember that a woman has died. A woman whose death Lott is using for clickbait to perpetuate his tediously mealy-mouthed anti-feminist agenda.

Gee, sisters, I was feeling all down about the oppression, but now I know it’s really bonded us, I feel so much better! But this line isn’t just misogynistic bullshit: it’s also, you notice, subtly taking a pop at other men. Most men, Lott posits, have denied themselves this support. The rhetoric of self-denial, of self-mortification, suggests almost a form of intentional self-harm-by-emotion. Most men could avoid suicide, but they ‘denied themselves’ and so they died. It’s feeding right back into that myth that suicide is somehow a nobler, braver option than the alternatives. And, knowing how very, very hard it can be in some areas of the UK to get any sort of mental health support, I find it quite hard to buy.

Lott’s piece is, no doubt, a personal cry from the heart, an emotional outpouring of the kind many people aren’t able to make – especially not in the pages of a national newspaper. And you could argue it’s a very good thing he feels able to model the sort of emotional openness that Mansfield’s SOS campaign advocates. But in doing this, Lott manages to take a pot shot at his daughter (she won’t read his memoirs, which he claims is because she’s prejudiced against depression), at other men who foolishly ‘deny themselves’ support freely available, and, of course, at women. What kind of woman  (his article plants the question) can benefit from all of that female bonding, all of that “real support, the love, the crying on one another’s shoulder, the support of a large informal network that many women enjoy” – and yet still kill herself, as Anna Mansfield did?

At this point, I wonder what it is that Lott knows, and I don’t, about women with responsibilities of looking after children who – like the Mansfield children – had a rare blood disease and required a substantial amount of care.

I also wonder about the way Lott brings his perspective, unhesitatingly, to this situation. To him, a young woman’s suicide and a campaign to bring some good out of that tragedy, is an opportunity to talk about why men have it harder. We all bring in personal perspectives. And mine, reading Lott’s piece, was to remember another social trend, which is less rarely cited by those who see suicide as evidence of what women “enjoy” and what men “deny themselves”. And that, sadly, is the trend concerning cases in which suicide is not violence targeted solely against the self, but combines with toxic masculinity in filicide.

Filicide-suicide is a gendered example of violence. The statistics are difficult to recover, as researchers observe, because not all observers agree on the definitions of victims and perpetrators. Some studies include age limits as low as 13; others, as high as 20. Some studies include only biological or adoptive parents, while others also include primary care givers of other kinds, and step parents. This last is particularly relevant, since some studies indicate that 1 in 5 filicides are committed by stepfathers. But, overall, children are far more likely to be killed by male parents than female.

Both Karen Ingala Smith and Louise Pennington have written repeatedly about the way in which these types of suicide are reported, and – in particular – the disturbing ways in which they normalise this form of violence by perpetuating the same set of implications Lott puts forward.Men are just too strong, too self-denying, to show weakness; women have no excuse; women are obliquely responsible. Where Lott claims that men are excluded from a network of female support, reports of these cases regularly dwell on the male perpetrators’ relationships with their children’s mothers. In both situations, women are presented as having a responsibility to provide the ‘vital’ support that ‘isolated’ men need, while the reasons for women’s own struggles – struggles that drove Anna Mansfield to kill herself – are relegated to the background.

 

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Tim Lott thinks Women Benefit from Oppression (Warning: Discussion of Suicide)

  1. I think there are issues whenever anyone without extensive experience of mental health systems, illnesses and their treatment writes subjectively about the subject. It is very hard to write about MH without adopting this subjective overlay and whilst service user and observer viewpoints are vital, it is also vital that they don’t generalise to others, and to the system as a whole, based upon their own experiences.

    The issue with Lott’s piece is that it is muddled. Like a lot of OPED writers, he seeks to make a news story conform to his own experiences and in doing so, does the issue a grave disservice. He also seeks to interpret the reactions of others and deny them their independence and right to react as they see fit. And -(this is going to make me unpopular!)- a problem with some depressive illnesses is that they make it impossible for the ill person to empathise with the experiences of others. Their misery and emptiness is so profound and nihilistic that there is no room for walking in the shoes of the people around them. Part of targeting faulty and delusional suicidal ideation would be challenging these thought processes. Depression can be darkly seductive, allowing a person to reject everything that is difficult and avoid the truly hard and frightening work of recovery (not through weakness but because of the illnesses effects on cognition, volition, emotion, and its biological effects). The depression becomes a suffocating but at times useful, security blanket. Lott’s writing is full of these faulty schemas and don’t get me wrong, I have compassion for this because it is really damages relationships.

    Certainly there are huge concerns about the rise in male suicide and as a former MHP I can relate to that subjectively and objectively. Lott has yet to find the truth of the issues behind the ‘issue’- that women have been socialised to be care givers and gatekeepers to the health care of the whole family whether they want to be or not. They take the kids for shots, they have been afforded access to well established primary care prevention and health promotion via screening etc and socialised to think that this is their job and they are a bad parent if they don’r take on this yolk. This isn’t empowering most of the time: it is reductive and denies the woman freedom within the family. The male dependence upon this is possibly evidenced by the fact that single, divorced men are hugely vulnerable to health problems because they don’t access primary health care under their own volition.They have delegated this as women’s work and then Lott passively aggressively blames them for this, without any consideration of the massive socio cultural forces at work. Change in this department will take time and skilled health promotion which doesn’t victim blame, doesn’t overlay health behaviours with archaic psychological and cultural assumptions and guards against the overly subjective dictating our cultural response. Tendering out and cuts means this probably won’t happen- the days of specialises MH health promotion officers in every trust are long gone- I have an MA in health promotion and cannot believe the decimation the service has experienced. Not many people are aware of what HPP’s do and how important they are. Wonder why HP messages have gone awry? There’s part of your answer, right there.

    If anyone is interested, I am now working for Survivors of Bereavement by Suicide- Suffolk SOBS and we are campaigning to get the term ‘committed suicide’ removed from popular usage. Despite changes in the law, many people still use this blaming term. We offer support to families bereaved by suicide and hold meetings in Lowestoft, Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds. @SuffolkSoBs

    • Thank you so much for writing all of this. It makes complete sense, and it is really useful.

      I try to avoid the term ‘committed suicide’. I quoted Michael Mansfield saying it, for obvious reasons, but I completely take your point.

      I really can’t add anything to such an excellent reply, but hope the shortness of my response doesn’t hide the fact I’m very grateful for it!

  2. Pingback: Things you should be reading right now | The books are taking over...

  3. What the figures of more men than women killing themselves ignores (deliberately, in the hands of misogynist) is that more women than men attempt suicide. The difference is in the methods. Men use more violent means, such as hanging or guns; women are likely to overdose, which is slower and less certain.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s