עודכן: 7 בדצמ׳ 2021
Subordination and exploitation of Men in Private and Public Gynocentrism!
One of the more interesting statistics in Durkheim's phenomenal research on suicide which shows how entrenched is the phenomenon of male suicide does not necessarily come from the general suicide statistics but the various subcategories and their relationship to the general population. Already, when writing about lower/higher ﬁgures of mortality as well as numerical superiority/inferiority in all censuses of the insane, for instance, and as Durkheim states "far from the aptitude for voluntary death being either higher or equal to that of men", suicide happens to be an essentially male phenomenon. To every woman, there are on average four male suicides (Table IV, p. 19) as Durkheim writes which approves the modern statistics (which has the same ratio) and creates a link which essentially in terms of suicide shows that male discrimination. Also, it is very interesting to mention another dynamic namely that of female life expectancy at the time which as it is exactly today was higher, then, for women than men and so again dispels the myth of patriarchy. Also, having the same dynamic as today, as it will be shown later (see Table IX, p. 50), that in all countries the suicidal tendency increases regularly from childhood to the most advanced old age. This is also a statistic proven by a modern dynamic which more than hints to the fact that relationships with women, whether divorced or married, constitute one of the major killers of men. And contrary to popular belief, the burden on men in the Middle Ages was growing rather than declining compared to today - they were cannon fodders and slaves.
Furthermore, Durkheim, actually confirms that the suicides of females are known to be very few, only a slight fraction of those of males. Therefore, as we can see, already in the 18th men were the majority of suicide victims. Moreover, Durkheim, further confirms my assumption that marital status and suicide are presumed to be strictly interrelated. Divorced men have a higher suicide rate than the un-divorced, divorced women at a higher rate than un-divorced women but lower than divorced men! This shows again the same dynamic as we can encounter today. Men, therefore, suffered more already in the 19th century from suicide than women which is a sign of discrimination against men and disproves the notion of patriarchy that otherwise would have take measures to help men and at women's expense. This, of course, didn't happen as it also today isn't the case. For example, just as in the preceding instance, the grand-duchy of Oldenburg classiﬁes from this point of view like the other sections of Germany where divorce is of average frequency. A million unmarried women show 203 suicides, a million married women 156; the latter has, therefore, a coeﬃcient of preservation of 1.3, much above that of husbands, which was only 0.79. The ﬁrst number is 1.64 times greater than the second, approximately as in Prussia. Comparison of the Seine with other French departments strikingly conﬁrms this law. In the provinces, where there is less divorce, the average coeﬃcient of married women is only 1.49; it is therefore only half the average coeﬃcient of husbands, which is 2.88. In the Seine, the relation is reversed. The immunity of men is only 1.56 and even 1.44 if we omit the uncertain ﬁgures referring to the period of from 20 to 25 years; the immunity of women is 1.79. The woman’s situation concerning the husband’s there is thus more than twice as good as in the departments.
Furthermore, the fact that divorce disadvantages the husband and favors the wife in marriage, seems to be also proved from a historical standpoint. Regarding the devastating impact of divorce on men, if not granted proper protection, Durkheim writes: "Turning to peoples among whom the institution of divorce is widespread, the reverse is the case. Here woman gains by marriage and man lose, and her proﬁt is greater in Prussia than in Baden, and greater in Saxony than in Prussia. Her proﬁt is greatest in the country where divorces also are greatest. Accordingly, the following law may be regarded as beyond dispute: From the standpoint of suicide, marriage is more favorable to the wife the more widely practiced divorce is. It is, of course, also important to mention, as we will see as we proceed down the discourse here, that marriage not only in terms of a divorce but essentially (as an institution), although married women do struggle more than unmarried ones and thus need help, serves more women than men. "First", as Durkheim writes, "only husbands contribute to the rise in the suicide rate observable in societies where divorces are frequent, wives, on the contrary, committing suicide more rarely than elsewhere. If then, divorce can only develop with the improvement of woman’s moral situation, it cannot be connected with an unfavorable state of domestic society calculated to aggravate the tendency to suicide; for such an aggravation should occur in the case of the wife, as well as of the husband. A lowering of family morale cannot have such opposite eﬀects on the two sexes: it cannot both favor the mother and seriously aﬄict the father"
This is exactly the modern-day policy of the feminist gynocentric state apparatus most often practiced in Western countries but not only there. Those policies aim to subjugate the husband and exploit him with either the help of the well-fare state or if not existent the welfare organization available in the respective state which isn't one. Therefore, as Durkheim writes which reflects another modern dynamic in the light of historical research and terms, it is not a surprise as Durkheim writes that "The divorce is usually asked for by the wife from the husband (in France, 60 percent of divorces and 83 percent of separations)". "Accordingly," as he confirms, "domestic troubles are most often attributable to the man". And, therefore, the institution of divorce must itself cause suicide (on men) through its eﬀect on marriage. This is strikingly astonishing as first, Durkheim, disproves the feminist fallacy that those are men, their toxic masculinity, that's responsible for suicide and puts the responsibility straight forward on the misandrist society's shoulder which drives men to suicide. It's not a personal issue but a matter of social and cultural policy. It is a truth that all social sciences and social workers like to ignore showing an unbelievable lack of self and academic integrity. Second, we can see that the divorce ratio is also strikingly similar with 60% females to 40% males asking for a divorce in the 19th century compared to 70% females and 30% males asking for divorce today. And, last but not least, those are men who're shamed and blamed for the situation. Durkheim expands on it and writes: "one cannot help looking beyond one’s position when the ground underfoot does not feel secure. Hence, in the countries where marriage is strongly tempered by divorce, the immunity of the married man is inevitably less. But this consequence of divorce is peculiar to the man and does not aﬀect the wife. So, divorce protects her and she has frequent recourse to it"
It is also interesting to consider the following statistics. When it comes to widows and widower, women contribute only 17%; the share of men on the contrary rises from 79 to 83 percent. Man, thus loses according to Durkheim, more than a woman in passing from marriage to widowhood. This is the importance and becomes clear by the virtue of the following comparison. During the years 1888–91 in France, 380 suicides per million soldiers were recorded; at the same time, unmarried men from 20 to 25 years showed only 237. There were thus 160 military suicides per 100 unmarried civilians; which makes a coeﬃcient of aggravation of 1.6, wholly independent of bachelorhood. There were thus 160 military suicides per 100 unmarried civilians; which makes a coeﬃcient of aggravation of 1.6, wholly independent of bachelorhood. If the suicides of non-commissioned oﬃcers are separately computed, the coeﬃcient is still higher. During the period 1867–74, a million non-commissioned oﬃcers showed an annual average of 993 suicides. According to a census made in 1866, their average age was a little over 31 years. Of course, we do not know how high suicides of unmarried men of 30 years rose at that time; the tables we have drawn up refer to a much more recent time (1889–91) and are the only ones in existence; but starting from their ﬁgures, whatever error we make can only lower the coeﬃcient of aggravation of the non-commissioned oﬃcers below what it was. The number of suicides having almost doubled between the two periods, the rate of unmarried men of the age in question certainly rose. Consequently, comparing suicides of non-commissioned oﬃcers of 1867–74 with those of unmarried men of 1889–91, we may well reduce but not broaden the adverse eﬀect of the military profession. If therefore we ﬁnd a coefﬁcient of aggravation despite this error, we may be sure not only that it is real but that it is quite a bit more Important than the ﬁgures would make it appear. Now, in 1889–91, a million unmarried men of 31 years of age gave many suicides between 394 and 627, or about 510. This number is to 993 as 100 is to 194; which implies a coeﬃcient of aggravation of 1.94 which may be increased almost to 4 without fear of exaggerating the facts.
Since suicide, according to Durkheim, is a social phenomenon by the virtue of its essential element, it is proper to discuss the place it occupies among other social phenomena. The ﬁrst and most important question which concerns the subject is to discover whether or not suicide should be classed among the actions permitted by morality or among those proscribed by it. And this, the claim that men are responsible for suicide or that suicide is personal, is not the only myth that is refuted by Durkheim. Hence, suicide is a social construct and not a personal issue, it is, therefore, crucial and required to confront it against the feminist and gynocentric background of society. So, although, we generally think of feminism and certainly of feminist theory, as given birth in the 19th and 20th centuries primarily within the circles of left-wing politics and ideologies while ignoring its religious, traditional, and right-wing liberal roots, feminism as sexist and supremacist ideology whatever branch it is, has its roots in proto-feminism and even earlier than that. So, even though, feminism can be traced back as long as to the 12th century's Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine and the troubadours, we can recognize that already in the 16th century's Renaissance a huge and a vast fracture of its literature prioritized the interest of the "women question" (Querelle des femmes) over that of men, although the absolute majority of men were equally or even more oppressed than women, and that gave rise not only to a flood of female-focused literature but in fact to the creation of the feminist narrative, the basic foundations of modern feminism and especially its misandrist basis. Such writers and thinkers as Lucretia Marinella, Vives, Castiglione, Erasmus, Cornelius Agrippa, and Guillaume Postel hypothesized not only in theoretical terms the place of women in culture, religion, and society but especially Agrippa and Postel laid down a feminist narrative rooted in the hate of men and misandry as well as established the metaphysical foundation of the future feminist welfare state aiming at creating an oppressive matriarchy that will exploit and control men. Especially Postel's misandrist work, "Les très Merveilleuses Victoires des femmes du nouveau monde", translated as "the very marvelous victories of the women of the new world, based on a misandrist lie of male domination, evil, and brutality, a myth I have thoroughly refuted in the research too, has spoken of the end of this order and culminating in a utopian age with a political, social and cultural system (matriarchy) which will also be led by a feminine pope.
This same Utopian model stands at the very basis of every modern welfare state employing emanation from the religious into the secular one where the sacral institutions and authority are replaced by the state institutions and its paradigms and which by its very nature as we will see incorporate those ideas of male oppression, discrimination, and exploitation. Thus, in the case of the modern welfare state whether the right-wing liberal one and especially the left-wing social democratic state the "female pope" emanates into a female collective led government and legislation, even if being mainly elected and formed of men, and the religious matriarchy turns into a female-focused welfare state that is obsessed with prioritization of women, the discrimination and exploitation of men and while both systems maintain the female-focused narrative of gynocentrism and feminism. Although, from both of the men mentioned above, Agrippa is very known for his misandrist ideas and attitudes in the "declamation on the nobility and preeminence of the female sex", the most radical between the two of them (as well as others) is Guillaume Postel. In his work "The very marvelous victories of the women of the new world" he formulates in an esoteric interpretation the concept of women as the future leaders of both the ancient world, namely Europe and the East, and the newly discovered America. According to Postel, a new incarnation of the holy spirit in females will give rise to a new time of political and religious peace. Postel claims that the female psychosomatic structure is more in harmony with the sublunary world than is the male's which continues Agrippa's legacy of misandry (see Women, Freedom, and Calvin). This as well as other misandrist dynamics that stand at the basis of feminism, its philosophy, ideology as well as policies, and activism will be discussed here.
This tradition was continued by all branches and waves of feminism including the first wave and early 20th century feminists such as Jane Addams and Charlotte Perkins Gilman, who claimed that women are superior to men in many ways due to their caring, compassionate and non-violent nature, only to give some examples. So, gender discrimination against men rooted in the misandrist feminist ideology appears to exist mostly in the form of systemic but also structural discrimination that accompanies it. This is caused by the sexist gender system of gynocentric societies. This inherent sexism of the gynocentric system prevents men from gaining substantial equality with women, as men are more likely to suﬀer from stress-related illnesses, work-related accidents, unemployment, life-sized debts, alcoholism, traﬃc accidents, drugs, lack of housing, higher suicide rates, and a lower life expectancy. It is most evident in the process of divorce which is not the sole but one of the main roots through which this misandrist discourse can be seen and where the sexist gender system cuts through the delusion and myth of male dominance and power and puts men in a highly vulnerable position in the context of divorce and custody disputes since childcare is generally considered a feminine activity and thus mothers are therefore perceived more important to children than men while men are practically extorted and exploited by the welfare state. It is here where Durkheim's elaboration gains more in-depth insights and with them explain the environment of his statements and discoveries. The problem is not only feminism but gynocentrism itself whereas feminism has taken the basic evolutionary gynocentrism out of context and to extremity.
Another root that the war on men has taken its direction regarding marriage and divorce was not merely or solely the attack on the former and stripping men of every protection in the latter but the attack on fatherhood in the context of parenthood altogether to eliminate it. The façade or the lip service of the father-friendly equality feminism of the 1960s and 1970s was largely replaced with the later theory of patriarchy which has now exposed the through intentions and misandrist face of feminism. It is in this context and environment that such concepts as “Fathers rape Daughters within the family” (Ward 1984, p. 201) and that “fatherhood must be smashed or more precisely dropped bit by bit into the ocean” (Hearn 1983, p. 51) has emerged. The feminists have also created utopias of a father-free society (e.g. Ruddick 1989). These developments within the feminist ideology seem to have had huge effects on the equality policy in welfare states. As Paul Nathanson and Kathrine young have pointed out in their research and four books on misandry, ut has led to the establishment of a legally constructed misandrist law system that has incorporated man-hating as an institutionalized system. The discussions concerning the bad status of fathers in the context of divorce have been labeled as regressive and therefore, have been cut out of the agenda of the oﬃcial equality policy. In other areas in which men have equality problems, these problems have also been mostly nulliﬁed or ignored. As a consequence, the role of men in the equality policy has been reduced to the role of a defendant, and to the role of an assistant for the project for advancing women’s status. This development has begun in the 70ths and culminated in the epidemic rise of male suicide when it has begun to skyrocket proving Durkheim's theories on a sadly empirical level.
While refuting in the above passages the suicide to be of the male violent nature, Durkheim also does not dismiss female violence and writes: "to be exact, this inﬂuence of sex is an eﬀect rather of social than of organic causes. The woman kills herself less. Indeed, we are inclined to forget that there are murders of which she has a monopoly, infanticides, abortions, and poisonings". The most striking and astonishing statement here is that the father of the modern discipline of sociology includes abortion within the category of murder and thus domestic violence too. Durkheim, further states, "whenever homicide is within her range, she commits it as often or more often than man. According to Oettingen, half the total number of domestic murders is attributable to her. So, there is no reason to suppose that she has greater respect for another’s life because of her congenital constitution". Durkheim, here, predicts the gender symmetry paradigm in domestic violence as established by Murray Strauss. In effect, Durkheim was ahead of his time as recognizing gender violence also in the sphere of murder related to DV (Domestic Violence). Besides, Durkheim also expands regarding these aspects considering the wider picture of criminality. He writes: "if a single classiﬁcation is made to cover all sorts of intentional homicide—premeditated and unpremeditated murders, 34 parricides, infanticides, poisonings—woman’s share in the total is still very high. In France, 38 or 39 out of 100 such crimes are committed by women, and even 42 if abortions are included. In Germany, the proportion is 51 percent, in Austria at 52 percent. To be sure, involuntary homicides are omitted in this calculation, but homicide is truly homicide only when it is intentional. On the other hand, the characteristically feminine forms of murder, such as infanticides, abortions, and domestic murders, are by their nature hard to discover. Many therefore are committed which escape justice and, accordingly, statistics. Remembering that woman must probably beneﬁt by the same indulgence in preliminary investigations as she certainly does in sentences, where she is much more often acquitted than man, it is clear, ﬁnally, that aptitude for homicide cannot be very diﬀerent in the two sexes. On the contrary, we know how great is a woman’s immunity to suicide.
A famous feminist claim is that which compares male suicide with a husband killing their wife, declaring the act of suicide to be rooted in the same violent nature of men which drives them to kill their spouses. Durkheim refutes specifically this feminist claim and writes: "besides if the tendency to suicide were only a repressed tendency to murder, as soon as murderers and assassins are arrested and their violent instincts can no longer ﬁnd external expression, they should become their victims. The homicidal tendency should, therefore, be transformed into the suicidal tendency under the inﬂuence of imprisonment. On the contrary, it seems from the testimony of several observers that great criminals rarely kill themselves. It is even a general rule that where homicide is very common it confers a sort of immunity against suicide. We thus reach the following conclusion. If suicide and homicide often vary inversely to one another, it is not because they are two diﬀerent aspects of the same phenomenon; but because in some respects they form two opposed social currents. In these respects, they are as mutually exclusive as day and night, just as the diseases of extreme drought preclude those of extreme humidity.
On the nature and correlation between the reason for suicide and its prevention, we can learn by examining suicide in the light of religion and especially by the association with religious minorities. Here, Durkheim writes, "in the nineteenth century, the suicide-rate for the Jews appeared to be lowest of the three main currents of religion in Western civilization. This also explains the situation of Judaism. Indeed, the reproach to which the Jews have for so long been exposed by Christianity has created feelings of unusual solidarity among them. Their need of resisting a general hostility, the very impossibility of free communication with the rest of the population, has forced them to, strict union among themselves. Consequently, each community became a small, compact, and coherent society with a strong feeling of self-consciousness and unity. Everyone thought and lived alike; individual divergences were made almost impossible by the community of the existence and the close and constant surveillance of all over each. The Jewish church has thus been more strongly united than any other, from its dependence on itself because of being the object of intolerance. By analogy with what has just been observed apropos of Protestantism, the same cause must, therefore, be assumed for the slight tendency of the Jews to suicide despite all sorts of circumstances which might on the contrary incline them to it. Doubtless, they owe this immunity in a sense to the hostility surrounding them. However, if this is its inﬂuence, it is not because it imposes a higher morality but because it obliges them to live in greater union. They are immune to this degree because their religious society is of such solidarity. Besides, the ostracism to which they are subject is only one of the causes producing this result; the very nature of Jewish beliefs must contribute largely to it. Judaism, in fact, like all early religions, consists basically of a body of practices minutely governing all the details of life and leaving little free room to individual judgment. Thus, the extrapolation regarding the small historical suicide rates among Jews and its relation to the wider context of male suicide can be described as following: solidarity and social cohesion, as well as the resulting morality, are the main reasons for preventing or reducing suicide rates and not blaming it on masculinity and men as feminists do. Hence, feminism is divisive, anti-social, immoral as well as only concerned with misandrist incitement. Therefore, feminism is the driving force behind male suicide.
Furthermore, Durkheim explains religious minorities: "but if the Jew manages to be both well instructed and very disinclined to suicide, it is because of the special origin of his desire for knowledge. It is a general law that religious minorities, to protect themselves better against the hate to which they are exposed or merely through a sort of emulation, try to surpass in knowledge the populations surrounding them. Thus, Protestants themselves show more desire for knowledge when they are a minority of the general population. The Jew, therefore, seeks to learn, not to replace his collective prejudices by reﬂective thought, but merely to be better armed for the struggle. For him, it is a means of oﬀsetting the unfavorable position imposed on him by opinion and sometimes by law. And since knowledge by itself has no inﬂuence upon a tradition in full vigor, he superimposes this intellectual life upon his habitual routine with no eﬀect of the former upon the latter. This is the reason for the complexity he presents. He is an intellectual and man of culture. He thus combines the advantages of the severe discipline characteristic of small and ancient groups with the beneﬁts of the intense culture enjoyed by our great societies. He has all the intelligence of modern man without sharing his despair. In other words, to reframe Durkheim's message here, he sites actually at this juncture, yet, another reason for male suicide. It is the feminist policy of rewriting history and cultivating misandry by spreading stupidity and ignorance among the masses' misandry. Thus, ignorance is, being unaware or unconscious of feminism's true nature and consequently internalizing misandry, is another reason for male suicide. As Durkheim writes, "Far from knowledge being the source of the evil, it is its remedy, the only remedy we have".
The next myth that Durkheim refutes is denying the feminist claim that suicide should not be reported in the media so others won't mimic it. "In short", writes Durkheim, "certain as the contagion of suicide is from individual to individual, imitation never seems to propagate it to aﬀect the social suicide-rate. Imitation may give rise to more or less numerous individual cases, but it does not contribute to the unequal tendency in diﬀerent societies to self-destruction, or to that of smaller social groups within each society. Its radiating inﬂuence is always very restricted; and what is more, intermittent. Its attainment of a certain degree of intensity is always brief. With very rare exceptions, then, it may be said that imitation is not an original factor of suicide. Certain authors, ascribing to imitation a power it does not possess, have demanded that the printing of reports of suicides and crimes in the newspapers be prohibited. Such a prohibition might succeed in slightly reducing the annual total of such acts. But it could hardly modify their social rate. The strength of the collective tendency would be unchanged since the moral state of the groups would be unaﬀected by this. Weighing the doubtful and very slight possible advantages of such a measure against the serious objections to the suppression of all judicial publicity, the legislator may well hesitate to follow the advice of such specialists. What may contribute to the growth of suicide or murder is not talking about it but how it is talked of. Where such acts are loathed, the feelings they arouse penetrate the recital of them and thus oﬀset rather than encourage individual inclinations. But inversely, when society is morally decadent, its state of uncertainty inspires in it an indulgence for immoral acts frankly expressed whenever they are discussed, and which obscures their immorality. Then example becomes truly dangerous not as an example but because the revulsion it should inspire is reduced by social tolerance or indiﬀerence.
The irony is that as standing opposed to the founding father of the discipline of sociology, the ﬁnal blow and weapon against men, in the context of divorce, was given in the form of the feminist theory of social work, which pressures social workers to identify with their female customers, and which suggests that the interests of women and children are synonymous. This theory leads to the conclusion that the interests of the child may be found out by interviewing the mother. Together, these ideas inspired by the diﬀerence theory, have led to the weakening of the status of men in the context of divorce, custody disputes, and criminal court, although the original ideas of the equality feminists might have had the opposite eﬀect to the status of men. And this is exactly the environment which according to Durkheim contributes and constitutes the phenomenon of male suicide and the world gender gap related to it. Feminists, for example, may also shut their eyes from the discrimination of men in the context of divorce, as they wish to remain loyal to the feminists, who are ﬁghting against men in the context of feminist theory of social work or in the context of their divorce and custody disputes. So, although this principle of social work seems egalitarian and rational on the surface level, it may induce discrimination against men, as the vast majority of social workers are female, and as women contact social service organizations more commonly, in the context of family problems and divorce, than men. It is likely to be very diﬃcult for female social workers to treat the wife and husband of a divorcing couple in an equal manner, especially if it is the wife who ﬁrst contacts the social workers.
The connection between feminism and the discriminative double standards in social work appears even stronger in the feminist theory of social work, which claims that the basis of all social workers should be the shared feelings of femininity between the social worker and the customer. This means that female social workers are encouraged to create a special bond between themselves and their female customers. In the context of divorce and custody, this theory encourages social workers to apply a feminine and feminist bias in favor of the divorcing wife, and against the interests of the divorcing husband. From a legal point of view, such a bias in favor of women is against the laws concerning the fair administrative treatment of customers by the public administration. The feminist theory of social work also claims that mothers and children have joint interests. This idea is based on the sexist and feminist interpretations of psychoanalytical discourses, which emphasize the symbiosis of the mother and child during infancy. This belief in the joint interests of women and children may lead to severe discrimination against men by social workers, as the laws concerning custody require that the decisions concerning custody should be made according to the best interest of the child. If mothers and children are assumed to have joint interests, one can deduce that the interests of children can be found out by interviewing the mother. This very easily leads to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of children, to be given to the custody of the mother – if the mother wishes so. And this of course is going strictly and completely against the basics of Durkheim's teachings of sociology.
In summary, the feminist theory of social work tends to put women and children into the subject position of the customer, while the father is presented as a potential threat to the well-being of this customer. The feminist theory of social work also has indirect consequences: The strong identiﬁcation of social workers with their female customers is likely to lead to feminine bias in the interpretation of men’s and women’s family issues, and to the tendency of social workers to believe everything that their female customers say. This likely to amplify and support the villain discourses that divorcing women commonly apply to their ex-husbands. The results of the feminist theory of social work are found in many reports and recommendations, written by social workers in the context of divorce and custody settlements. For example, children may be recommended to the custody of the mother “as the granting of custody of the children to the mother will reduce her risk of problematic consumption of alcohol”. Similar arguments are not used for granting custody to fathers, who have problems with alcohol. The anti-male bias can appear in any case and any kind of custody dispute. Although typically, social workers recommend custody to the mother of small children, it is also possible to ﬁnd recommendations written by social workers, claiming that puberty is such a diﬃcult phase in a girl’s life that it is recommended that custody is given to the mother. Similar arguments are not used in favor of men. This seems to suggest that the female social workers tend to identify themselves too strongly with their female customers which is, in fact, a betrayal of Durkheim's legacy in every aspect.
Moreover, the contradiction to Durkheim's paradigm is evident all over the subcategories of sociology. In social service organizations, for instance, not only male customers can be discriminated against. Male employees may also face gender discrimination. Such discrimination would be a logical consequence of the fact that social service organizations are matriarchal, and therefore are likely to develop a femininely and feministically biased organizational culture. In a femininely biased culture, male social workers are likely pressured towards the more masculine jobs, while women wish to protect the maternalist core of social work from male intruders. This means that men are subtly pressured towards the more ‘masculine’ tasks, such as social work with male alcoholics – and not some more feminine work with female customers, or with families (see Holter 2004). This pressure meets the deﬁnition of gender discrimination, in those cases in which the man would like to do some tasks that belong to the ‘feminine core’ of social work. If men attempt to enter the feminine core, they are likely to face strong resistance, especially if they question some old femininely biased traditions, policies, or routines of social work. In these cases, the treatment of male social workers is likely to resemble the treatment of female policemen during the last millennium, as male social workers are still as rare as female police oﬃcers used to be. In general, the male intruders, who try to change old femininely biased traditions of social work, are likely to be labeled as diﬃcult and uncooperative. This feminine bias of social service organizations, however, is matched with a strong feminist bias. This means that all male social workers, who wish to question the demonizing stereotypes of men that appear in feminist discourses, are likely to be perceived as unprofessional, old-fashioned, or chauvinist. These ﬁndings are suﬃcient for proving the existence of widely spread discrimination against men in social service organizations as well as being suﬃcient for making an explicated hypothesis, according to which social service organizations, in general, tend to discriminate male customers and male employees far more common than female customers and employees and thus as we've seen in harmony and accordance of Durkheim's paradigm tend to contribute to male suicide culture as it creates a hostile environment for men where even other males are unwilling to listen to them.
The usual assumption or societal notion is that it is only the left or the left-wing leaning feminism is the problem. This is not supported by research or empirical data. Rooted in general in traditional gynocentric upbringing and religious misandry, the right-wing parties, traditional conservatives, and right-wing leaning feminism, also tend to be unsympathetic against the men, especially the uneducated, unemployed, and lower-class males. This means that the conservative parties do not recognize the problems of lower-status men as gender equality problems, as any real social problems or that gynocentrism and feminism underlies all other existing problems, which would require action from the part of the society. The last aspect, namely that gynocentrism and feminism underlie all other existing problems, is also a shared heritage with all left-leaning ideologies. According to both, the mainstream conservative as well as liberal-left thinking, the male suicides, alcoholics, homeless and unemployed, for instance, should accept their responsibility for their bad status. Of course, this harsh ideology ignores as we've seen Durkheim's conclusion that suicide is rarely a personal problem but is caused by society. However, the conservative ideology has produced several maternalistic and feminist women organizations in the third sector, which have specialized been created to help women whether low or high status while no such efforts were met regarding helping men. Similar conservative activity to help low-status men is found more rarely. This means that no different than the left-wing parties, conservative parties seem to have a stronger bias against males than against females too. This can't be a coincidence and it shows how gynocentric ideology underlies all religious and political heritage exposing gynocentrism as the most profound dynamic that pervades all other phenomena, undercurrents, and forces. Whether in a family or criminal courts, this seems specifical to appear in court, as the conservative judges seem to have the same tendency to favor females over males, which means the same as systematic discrimination of males. This link between men’s discrimination and conservativism seems to also appear in the maternalist and chivalrous discrimination of men in the context of custody and divorce.
If we want to sum it up in one paragraph, then we can say that in reality and as standing opposed to the gynocentric and feminist narrative, the picture as it reveals itself is according to Durkheim, completely, contrary to the feminist myth. "The legal establishments" of fact always accompanying suicide, Durkheim writes, include the motive (family trouble, physical or other pain, remorse, drunkenness, etc.), which seems to have been the determining cause, and in the statistical reports of almost all countries is found a special table containing the results of these inquiries under the title: presumptive motives of suicides. Therefore, when Durkheim claims it is a male phenomenon, then the establishment is also anti-masculine and misandrist. And the bottom line is in the end evident and self-sustaining whereas we see in all the countries of the world women commit suicide much less than men. Everywhere, suicides of women are four, ﬁve, or six times less frequent than those of men. The wife is found to beneﬁt from divorce, even (more) when she is also a mother. On general. the wife has a higher immunity than the husband. "The more often and easily the conjugal bond is broken, the more the wife is favored in comparison with the husband". To every woman, there are on average four male suicides. That's the undeniable truth according to Durkheim, the founding father of sociology.