Owen is right on this of course (minor couple of quibbles aside) but important to understand this is only half the story. Men opening up about distress & seeking help is important, but only helpful when we (as individuals, society & institutions) are prepared to listen & hear.
"Men must speak out & be prepared to seek help" is an atomised, individualist remedy which is actually quite convenient to the (dare I say it? Neoliberal) establishment, as it places onus on the man suffering & ignores, eg, chronic shortages of therapy on NHS @OwenJones
@owenjones The obsession with persuading men to open up about their feelings as a solution to the suicide crisis also ignores the massive role played by economic & social factors in suicide rates. Tens of thousands of men died (globally) as a direct consequence of the 2008 financial crash.
@owenjones It also ignores complex webs of social support needed to reduce/prevent suicide - alcohol & drug treatment. Homelessness. Criminalisation of social marginalisation. Patterns of child abuse and failings in child protection. Family breakdown & alienation. All massively significant.
@owenjones So yes. I'm not arguing with Owen, what he says is correct. But it is also only one part of the story - and the fact that it is the *only* part of the story which is routinely discussed is deeply problematic.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The racist far right has been spamming this data all over this site over the past few weeks, so it's worth explaining it.
Point 1. These are not statistics for sexual offences committed. These are not even statistics for sexual offences reported.
These are not even statistics for sexual offences going to court.
These are *convictions*.
So what? Well....
A large majority of sex offences happen between people who know each other, behind closed doors. Large proportions target children. The majority are not reported to police (obviously we can't know exactly how many, but for now we'll be generous & assume half are reported.)
OK I've been ignoring it all week but you're all still going on about it so I've cracked.... some thoughts on the Sam Fender / privilege / white working class boys from Durham debate. > 1/
First, if this is about misogyny, Andrew Tate etc, it's a big mistake to bring race/ethnicity into this. All research shows that misogynistic online cults like incels & Tate fans are (slightly) disproportionately likely to be POC. This is NOT a "white working class" issue. >
Secondly, I think people got caught up in one word "privilege" & threw themselves into a theoretical debate about its specific meaning and relevance. This may be emblematic of the problem. I think people like Fender use it as a proxy for all kinds of left social theory. Now.... >
There's a section in this where I think Ash is very wrong about & from what I have heard/read about her book this is where I think it's probably wrong (disclaimer, haven't read it yet)...
She says "I don't think Angela Davis did this. I don't think Huey Newton did this..."
And yes, I'm sure THEY didn't, but I'll tell you with some certainty that political meetings which THEY WERE AT descended into chaos because people turned minuscule points of ideological difference into huge barneys & factional disputes & while it was going on >
People like Ash said "Come on guys, what are we doing here, this is madness!" and wrote books about the narcissism of small differences etc. The exact nature of the arguments may have been slightly different (but often they were remarkably similar) but the exact same processes >
🧵
Think it’s important to say loudly that there was never a media/political cover up of Pakistani grooming gangs. What we actually had was a media/political culture of indifference and disinterest in vulnerable & socially marginalized children being raped & abused by anyone. >
When it emerged that paedophile gangs were running networks of children’s homes in N. Wales, in Lancashire, in London, in NI etc & thousands of kids were being raped & horribly abused, the media treated it as a minor non-issue because no one really cared about the kids involved.
When we learned about abuse in faith orgs, notably (but not just) the RC church, the scale of the abuse & the extent of the institutional cover-up, no one in media/ politics really gave a shit. No one cared about the kids involved. It took decades to register as a global scandal.
Quick catch up thread from yesterday for those of you who have been graciously & indulgently following my threads about (so-called) male victims of Violence Against Women and Girls over the years. >
We began the day with the announcement that the Mayor's Office in Manchester has launched the region's own male victims strategy as part of its gender-based violence programme. greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/news/greater-m…
This is hugely significant, most importantly to male survivors in the combined authority, but also it sets up a model for the rest of the country, both devolved & regional powers & national govt, demonstrating that it CAN be done without in any way diminishing the women's sector.
First, it's clear that Trump won pretty comfortably. His biggest voting bloc was older, whiter & poorer. Blaming one specific demographic seems a bit daft. The blame is in the failure of the Democrats, whether in their tenure or campaign (FWIW I guess more the former.) BUT >
There's no doubt there was indeed a marked swing towards Trump among young white men (YWM) even just since 2020. Why? I've seen it said that they won't vote for a woman / WoC. >