MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Latest Suicide Rates Bad and Still Covered Up

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 9:57 pm Tue 6th October 2015

FYI, our correspondence:

A Community Group because successive governments have failed to respect the voice and welfare of New Zealand men

PO Box 13130
Tauranga 3141
[email protected]
Phone (07)5712435 or (0274)799745

6 October 2015

Ms Moira Clunie
Director of Programme Design and Delivery
Mental Health Foundation
PO Box 10051
Dominion Road
Auckland 1446
Sent also via web page contact

Dear Ms Clunie

Re: Mental Health Foundation release regarding increased suicide numbers, and your interview on Radio NZ’s Checkpoint on 6/10/2015

While we acknowledge the Mental Health Foundation’s efforts to be helpful in its public statements about suicide in light of this year’s significant increase in deaths from suicide to the highest rate since annual coronial figures were kept, we have a number of questions as follows.

1. Why does your web-site article on this year’s suicide rate completely fail to mention the extent to which it is a gender issue, and why does it not mention the word “men’ at all except as a racial issue?

2. Why does your web-site reporting on this year’s suicide rate fail to mention that the 7% increase was entirely contributed by additional male deaths that increased by 11% while female deaths actually reduced by 6%?

3. Why does your web-site article state “The statistics tell us there needs to be greater attention to meeting the needs of young people and Maori men in particular” when in fact the gender difference for suicides is several times greater than any difference between age or racial groups however those are divided and compared?

4. Why in your Radio NZ interview did you carefully avoid mentioning men until the interviewer asked you one question about the hugely disproportionate male rate, and even then you sought to obfuscate the degree to which suicide is a male issue by emphasizing the racial difference and implying that it is as significant and important as the gender difference?

5. Can you demonstrate the mathematics that led you to claim that an 11% increase in male suicides was not statistically significant?

6. Why do the Mental Health Foundation’s suggestions for how to reduce suicide fail to mention any male-specific suggestions?

7. Why does the Mental Health Foundation fail to mention the likelihood that the way men are treated in our society (not to mention many other developed countries) is a reason that men feel so worthless and hopeless as to kill themselves in such appallingly high numbers?

8. Why does the Mental Health Foundation fail to mention that suicide might be reduced by discontinuing some or all of the many forms of bad treatment of males, such as:
“¢ widespread demonization of men and maleness in the absence of much appreciation or respect;
“¢ failure of our education system to provide equally for males’ learning needs and results while at the same time suspending and expelling males in heavily disproportionate numbers;
“¢ men being disallowed exclusive male clubs and services while women’s gender-specific organizations abound;
“¢ reported victimization statistics that frequently mention only female and child numbers and completely fail to mention the male rates or the fact that men are ever victims at all;
“¢ men’s contribution of almost 100% of workplace deaths and the vast majority of workplace serious injuries year after year in return for which they hear only constant complaints that women are claimed to earn about 12% less across the much safer jobs they mainly do;
“¢ men’s much higher likelihood of being killed or maimed in military service, and men being seen generally as disposable;
“¢ men’s much harsher treatment by law-enforcement agencies and in the justice system’s prosecution and sentencing;
“¢ the fact that a number of gender-specific laws only discriminate against males and there are none in the opposite direction, and the fact that many other laws although not gender-specific were designed to discriminate against men and operate as such;
“¢ ongoing heavy discrimination against men in contested Family Court cases including care of children and so-called “protection orders’;
“¢ emotional devastation of men who are much more often abandoned as inadequate by their partners and who then frequently lose their bonded relationships, roles and/or meaningful contact with their children;
“¢ exploitation of men through disproportionate, legalized theft of their previously earned assets deemed to become “relationship property’;
“¢ financial enslavement and impoverishment of men through excessive so-called “child support’ that is not recognized and appreciated by children as coming from their fathers and therefore does not contribute to father-child bonding, and is extracted from men even when their relationships with their children are denied or disrupted;
“¢ a more general devaluing and/or usurping of men’s roles by the state leading to high rates of family break-up;
and so forth.

9. In view of the Mental Health Foundation’s refusal to acknowledge the extent to which suicide is a gender issue, why does the Foundation’s web-site material emphasize the gender aspect of domestic violence of which the more serious is similar to suicide in its gender unbalance but in the opposite gender direction?

We look forward to hearing answers to these questions and understanding better the Mental Health Foundation’s agenda.

Yours sincerely etc


  1. A great summary of men’s suicide. It simply shows the extent of the oppression and systematic marginalisation of men by the women’s movement.

    It is no different than the racist practices in the USA, the oppression by the caste system in India, the oppression of women in Moslem countries.

    What is different is that it attracts so few activists.


    Comment by Joseph — Wed 7th October 2015 @ 12:54 am

  2. Brilliant MoMA. I’m betting that IF they reply, they will not answer any of your questions.

    Comment by golfa — Wed 7th October 2015 @ 7:18 am

  3. Dear MoMA, thank you very much for exposing what is going on at the Mental Health Foundation.

    I have poured a lot of scorn on medical practitioners and medical establishment, for their massive blind spot on men’s suicide. (I still believe that those comments continue to be true.)

    I have met Moira Clunie. Of all of the people with paying jobs in the wider medical establishment, she would be the one who I would least make accusations of being unfeeling or uncaring toward men.

    I see the big ignore as being (its not really my problem, so I can get away with ignoring it), bewilderment and a sex based “men are the protectors”, so if men are checking out, is there something going on that we all need to be scared of, but we don’t know what it is? I suspect that there is quite a bit of fear, especially among women? Also, suicides are a minor background issue, behind the power and control jockeying, going on all the time in our hospital system. Its all so Darwinian, let the Devil take the hindmost!

    In my opinion, the impasse needs to be broken by many men saying “we have a serious social problem that needs to be addressed, to protect both men’s and women’s interests. Cut the infighting and lets address what is going on”. At present we are just heading towards enforced polygamy. Maybe this is what NZ women want the most???? Addressing these issues is the only way we can better protect our children’s futures.

    I would widen the issues to include boy’s education, the way schoolteachers are treated by Government and society and the skills and quality of NZ caught$.

    However, this drags in large, dangerously entrenched interests, such as legal worker$. Anyway, until we put them in their proper place in society, we can never move the quality of life forward, in this country. (I see their only place in cheap burger$.) Similarly, for the murderous cackling hen$ at ird “child [and spousal] support”. I am only doing my job, as set out by Parliament. We didn’t know…….(Said with a thick german accent.)

    Life is for living, not for crying over our children, when it is too late.
    So, we need hundreds of men and women, to backup what MoMA is saying.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 7th October 2015 @ 8:51 am

  4. I agree with you Murray.

    Life is for living, not for crying over our children, when it is too late.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 7th October 2015 @ 8:56 am

  5. zzzzzz…..Also, suicides are a minor background issue, behind the power and control jockeying, going on all the time in our legal system. Its all so Darwinian, let the Devil take the hindmost! ….zzzzzzzzzz

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 7th October 2015 @ 12:00 pm

  6. Women bring out in men their weakest points and that becomes much more apparent in times of family break ups – depression sets in – wondering about their children mainly and preoccupied with ‘who the ‘new man’is.
    Men need to get a lot smarter, they need to understand MORE about how women can operate – they need to think ahead because that is exactly what women do – they think ahead.
    If men do not educate themselves on the psyche of women, then they will continue to get run right over the top of.
    Now it’s all very well for myself to put these things in such simple terms, because it isnt simple at all – women are not simple to work out – sometimes it takes years to establish how many women tick.
    There will be books on the subject – “working out women”. Perhaps education is the key – let all those males who cannot read (thousands in this country) – have ‘working out women’ explained to them.
    For example: Explain what the likely scenario will be for them when they split up from their families – their wife and children – forearm them with knowledge so that they may know what steps to take before the ‘event’ that currently leads them to despair.

    Comment by MrFatsworth — Wed 7th October 2015 @ 8:08 pm

  7. It would be great to add a few good luck/news stories aswell, tell men there can be victories on the way to the light at the end of the tunnel, and that things do get better.

    Comment by too tired — Thu 8th October 2015 @ 9:25 pm

  8. FARMERS – our FARMERS – good men destroyed by this “rock star” economy are committing suicide in large numbers – and this is not being reported. Word around our district – a farming area – is that this is a serious concern. That would coincide exactly with the rise in suicide numbers now being reported…….

    Comment by hornet — Wed 14th October 2015 @ 6:42 pm

  9. MOMA, I take it Ms Moira Clunie hasn’t replied ?

    Comment by golfa — Tue 20th October 2015 @ 10:07 pm

  10. I was horrified at some of the interviews I heard following the release of those figures.
    Great questions.
    Having become familiar with the Property Relationship Act recently I realise how biased it is toward the female leaving a relationship .
    I am one of those who had a major asset prior to marriage but because I failed to grasp the changes in 2002 that were retrospective I have been caught.
    These changes are scurrilous and anti male.
    I recommend any male getting in to a relationship opt out of the provisions of the Act and have an agreement drawn up.Solid as.

    Comment by allan — Thu 22nd October 2015 @ 8:33 pm

  11. I recommend any male getting into an agreement, to opt out of the provisions of the relationship and have an Act drawn up.

    A prenuptial agreement is mainly to give you the right to pay legal worker’s bills, well only actually.

    They have very little subsequent value for anything, least of all asset protection from estrogen-based parasites or legal workers.

    In fact they are proof of your lack of good faith at wanting to pass on assets to an ex anything and this can be used as evidence against you in familycaught$. This is to make sure that you do indeed pass on assets to the people who haven’t earned them (the ex I mean, not the legal workers, although I guess it does apply to the legal workers too).

    Look before you leap suggests that relationships have to last just less than the statutory limit of 3 years, or 2 years if disadvantaged by marriage or love(oxytocin intoxication).

    The incentive consequences of the relationship property act [onto citizens that is] are unconscionable. The only sensible conclusion, is that assets need to be documented in “other” names, long before the relationship comes into being. This is clearly seen from the observation that the only people not inconvenienced by relationship property act, are business and other pragmatic people.

    By way of example, Hero Dot.Com has fairly well survived several challenges, that would have demolished most of us with only one or a few multiple identities. We must all learn from hims, ie learn from all of Dot.Com’s identities.

    Don’t be just one person. Ah, what is love, after legal workers have trashed it?

    I find drugs work just fine…..

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 22nd October 2015 @ 11:02 pm

  12. The world has been here before.

    Jewish Financial Theory – that’s all I have to say.

    Comment by Downunder — Fri 23rd October 2015 @ 3:03 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar