Hegemonic Masculinity and Gender Variation in Suicide Rates

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

The concepts of sex, gender and sexuality are wide in terms of meaning and applications (Bianca & Heather 2015). These concepts account for most of the behaviors that are common among human beings nowadays. In addition, Uzzell and Horne (2006) pointed out that gender and sexual orientation play a significant role in the decisions that different people take. For example, a lot of studies have pointed out that men and women respond differently to issues such as depression. Additionally, more men than women are likely to commit successful suicide. These are examples of cases to show the importance of understanding sex, gender, and sexuality to effectively combat issues arising from these concepts. This paper provides an overview of various aspects of psychology including the effects of sex, gender and sexuality on counseling psychology and the concept of hegemonic masculinity and its role in explaining gender variation in suicide rates and the diagnosis of depression. Secondly, the paper provides a critical analysis of the role of psychology in creating and maintaining ideas about sex, gender and sexuality and an evaluation of several alternatives to mainstream psychology, and the different characterizations they present of sex and gender. In addition, the paper covers an interrogation of the relationship between evidence, theory and practice in psychology with relation to gender and sexuality, and evaluation of the psychological theory with relation to gender and sexuality, as well as a reflection on the need for multiple theoretical perspectives to understand complex phenomena.

Effect of issues arising from sex, gender and sexuality on counseling psychology

Psychology is a very broad field that has several other areas such as counseling psychology. A lot of concerns have been expressed in the practice of psychology as far as issues arising from sexuality, gender and are concerned (Bianca & Heather 2015). Counseling psychology refers to one of the areas of applied psychology that focus on the facilitation of personal, as well as interpersonal functions across the human lifespan (Evans & Barker 2010). The field of counseling psychology shows concern in areas of human development, organization, and vocational, social and emotional aspects (Uzzell & Horne 2006). For this reason, there is a need for the concerned individuals to have a clear understanding of the various issues that might arise from gender, sex, and sexuality. The lack of understanding of human sexuality and the difference between gender and sex can have adverse effects on the practice of counseling psychology.

Usually, gender and sex issues affect the efficiency of psychological counselors in a case where the counselors do not have the necessary knowledge of such matters. Various studies have pointed out that most of the counselors and therapists do not have experience working with bisexual, gay and lesbian clients, and hence have challenges of inefficiency in service provision within such areas (Bianca & Heather 2015). This can be attributed to the fact that most counselors and gender therapists do not have enough skills and training as far as the concept of sexuality is concerned. For this reason, most gays, lesbians and bisexuals have had a bad experience with psychological counselors, a factor that undermines the significance of this area of applied psychology. Therefore, it is important for the concerned people to have the necessary training for the purpose of ensuring efficiency whenever dealing with any sex, gender and sexuality issues.

Gender variation in suicide rates and diagnosis of depression

The concept of hegemonic masculinity

There has been a developing debate focusing on the concept of men and masculinity as far as gender systems’ relationships and the aspect of social formation are concerned. For this reason, numerous scholars and psychologists have had divergent opinions on the concept of masculine gender systems (Uzzell & Horne 2006). Some researchers and scholars argue that historically, exogenous factors have been responsible for changes in masculine gender systems such that the system cannot stably reproduce in the absence of some external factors. On the other hand, other researchers believe that the current economy has played a significant role in the current social change. There are those scholars and researchers who are of the opinion that class relations determine gender relations. Additionally, there are concerns that male norms define autonomy, different types of aggression, inner drive and courage in men.

Hegemony has been considered to have contributed largely to Marxist thinking, and it refers to the aspect of holding and winning power, as well as the formation of particular social alignment during the process. As such, based on this perspective, the concept of hegemonic masculinity points to the different approaches through which the dominance of the ruling class is established and maintained. Several studies and theories have tried to explain the relationship between gender and sexuality, as well as the gender variation in suicide rates and diagnosis of depression.

Suicide, Depression, and Masculinities

There have been a lot of concerns regarding the subjective view that even though men and women attempt suicide as compared to their male counterparts, most cases of successful suicides are common among men (Cardoso 2012). For the past years, the explanations given by numerous psychologists and scholars were aligned to biological aspects only with little attention to factors related to gender (Marusic 2001). As such, the primary concern has been whether or not the construction of masculinity can be a starting point to understand the process of contemplating, discussing and enacting suicide among men.

Globally, the issue of suicide has been known to offer an interesting paradox. Successful suicide missions are rare among women despite the fact that they are involved in more suicide cases than men (Kandrychyn 2004). For example, according to reports on cases of suicide in the Western Hemisphere, the ratio of successful suicide between males and females is 2:1. Recent studies show that such figures might be extremely high in other countries (Bianca & Heather 2015; Cardoso 2012). In spite of this, it has been pointed out that such differences in the number of successful cases of suicide among men and women are not a recent phenomenon since the disparity has been there for ages.

Most of the explanations available nowadays about the variation of suicidal mortality are not satisfactory (Kandrychyn 2004). Cardoso (2012) attributed this to the fact that there must be complex factors involved as well as the rarity of suicidal actions. For this reason, most scholars find it challenging to examine the aspect of suicide variations in men and women. The lack of a precise measure and explanation of the differences in successful cases of suicides between men and women explains the extent of neglect on gender issues (Marusic 2001). As far as the argument on masculinity is concerned, several studies have tried to provide evidence that examining the aspect of gender can be a significant way to understand why men and women exhibit a particular gap in suicide cases (Cardoso 2012). Kandrychyn (2004) attributes this to the fact that the construction of masculinities plays a significant role in suicide cases. Expounding on such issues can offer insight into the various ways that can be used to modify influences on gender as far as suicidal behavior is concerned.

Several studies have shown that the lack of understanding of gender and masculinity affects the general concept of gender variation in suicide rates, as well as the diagnosis of depression between men and women (Canetto 2015; Emslie, Ridge, Ziebland & Hunt 2007; Kandrychyn 2004). In spite of this, it is universally understood among post-structuralists and social constructionists that the understanding of the aspect of gender can play a significant role in explaining cognitions and any behavior exhibited by men and women. For example, men in the West are considered to have experiences of social pressure in the endorsement of hegemonic gendered identities like competitiveness, strength and independence (Fernquist 2007). As such, concerning the cited example it appears that the possibility that all types of behaviors express gender, then ‘doing masculinity’ can be considered to put men in a vulnerable position to engage in suicidal behavior, especially when compared to women. In spite of this, the link between masculinity and suicide has not shown cases of historical interest among scholars and psychologists. According to Cardoso (2012), there are several ways through which masculinity constructions can have an effect on the success rate of suicide among men.

Fernquist (2007) noted that the methods of committing suicide that are used by men and women also determine the success rate of suicide. Men have a high possibility of using lethal methods in committing suicide like the use of firearms while women use less lethal methods of committing suicide. This explains the difference in the number of successful suicide cases between men and women. Several authors such as Canetto (2015) point out that the noted difference can be explained by considering the various ways through which different scholars use diverse social behaviors in the demonstration of gendered identities. According to Kandrychyn (2004), and basing the argument on a more distinct perspective, men have a high probability of using lethal methods of committing suicide as compared to women since such methods are considered to be in line with dominant constructions of masculinity prescribing strength and aggression. Several studies point out that it is considered inappropriate for men to survive a suicide act.

Men and women react differently to destress (Fernquist 2007). The concept of hegemonic masculinity points out that women, unlike men, are more likely to be affected by various situations that force them to be highly depressed (Kandrychyn 2004). Emslie, Ridge, Ziebland and Hunt (2007) observed that women are diagnosed with depressive disorders more often than their male counterparts, whereby men have a prevalence rate of 12.7% for depressive disorders as compared to the women with a prevalence rate of more than 20%. According to Bianca and Heather (2015), most of the explanations given on gender variation in depressive disorders focus on various variables that are different in different individuals. Nonetheless, none of the used variables have significantly explained the difference (Fernquist 2007). However, the concept of hegemonic masculinity has played a critical role in explaining such differences. Canetto (2015) noted that such differences exist due to the differences in power and status among women and men. Additionally, there are variations in the prevalence rate for depressive disorders between men and women because of the “differences in biological responses to stress factors, styles of coping with stress as well as different self-concepts” (Nolen-Hoeksema 2001; Emslie, Ridge, Ziebland & Hunt 2007). In the light of the theory of hegemonic masculinity, the absence of social power in women accounts for their vulnerability to different stressors. Evidently, the difference in depressive disorders and suicide rates in men and women can be explained adequately by the concept of hegemonic masculinity.

The role of psychology in creating and maintaining ideas about sex, gender, and sexuality

There are various ideas about sex, gender, and sexuality (Fernquist 2007). Several studies have shown that psychology has a role to play in creating and maintaining ideas about sex, gender, and sexuality (Riggs 2011). For example, there are different psychological theories that explain different ideas about gender and human psychology. Psychology helps in the description of the determination and management of sex categories, the diverse meanings in terms of the culture that attached the different responsibilities among men and women (Emslie, Ridge, Ziebland & Hunt 2007; (Sadi-Nakar 2010). Secondly, psychology is very important in providing as well as maintaining ideas that help individuals to understand the existence of various identities (Fernquist 2007). In addition, Bianca and Heather (2015) asserted that psychology provides an understanding of the social norms, as well as the different perception that exists regarding masculinity and femininity. As such, psychology has a role to distinguish between gender and sex through various psychological ideas and theories. The theories help individuals to understand, as well as keep different ideas about sex, gender, and sexuality.

Alternatives to mainstream psychology

Mainstream psychology has received numerous criticisms over the years (Sadi-Nakar 2010; Shwalb & Shwalb 2007). One of the significant alternatives to mainstream psychology is critical psychology, which is an aspect of psychology that focuses its argument on critical theory (Bornstein 2005). In the presentation of issues of gender and sex, critical psychology progressively applies a psychological understanding of sex and gender and incorporates the concept of social change as a way to prevent as well as treat psychopathology (Tredoux 2005; Tissaw & Osbeck 2007). Bornstein (2005) points out that critical psychology criticizes mainstream psychology for its failure to take into consideration the role of the difference in power among different groups and social classes in influencing the social well-being of any given individual.

Secondly, constructionism is also considered to be an alternative to mainstream psychology, which is focused on a meta-theoretical critique of the presentation of gender and sex (Tredoux 2005). According to constructionism, politico-ideological, cultural, historical and social processes play a crucial role in the construction of human beings.

The relationship between evidence, theory and practice in psychology with relation to gender and sexuality

The understanding of gender and sexuality can be explained in various perspectives such as through evidence, theory as well as portrayed through practice, especially in psychology. Many psychologists have expressed concern regarding the relationship between gender and sexuality (Riggs 2011). According to psychology, gender can be defined as the shared set of norms, as well as associated expectations that point out the appropriate behaviors of boys and girls, and men and women. On the other hand, psychology considers sexuality to be the sexual interest that humans express on others. As such, it can be seen that sexuality defines the ability to develop sexual feelings as well as attraction. Several theories and psychological practices have shown that there is a difference between gender and sexuality (Shwalb & Shwalb 2007; Bianca & Heather 2015). While gender identity is associated with the personal sense of an individual’s gender and their classification in terms of sociocultural aspects, sexuality associated with the sexual feeling that individuals develop towards one another. Evidence, theory and practice in psychology show similarity in the concepts of gender and sexuality.

The psychological theory offers a background through which individuals can analyze, as well as explain behavioral and psychological phenomena (Riggs 2011). In the case of gender and sexuality, the psychological theory provides the grounds through which one can understand the relationship between gender and sexuality, as well as the role of psychology in creating and maintaining ideas on sex, gender and sexuality.

Reflection on the need for multiple theoretical perspectives to understand complex phenomena

Theoretical perspective has been used for long in providing an understanding of different aspects. While such an approach has been significant in its application, there are a few limitations, especially concerning the autonomy of thoughts and opinions of various theorists. This implies that different people can come up with a theoretical perspective that is centered on their individual interests but does not take into consideration the general aspect of the phenomena they are trying to explain. Usually, theoretical perspective is developed with the aim of explaining certain phenomena by showing the link between different concepts. The efficiency of various theoretical perspectives in explaining complex phenomena relies heavily on the knowledge and expertise of the concerned individuals as far as the subject of interest is concerned. For this reason, having multiple theoretical perspectives is appropriate. This can be attributed to the fact that such an approach offers the proper grounds for the comparison of different propositions.

Conclusion

The analysis above has been extensive and covered major areas of psychology such as the role of psychology in the creation of ideas about sex and gender. In addition, it was evident that there are various alternatives to mainstream psychology that try to approach the concept of gender presentation and characterization in different ways. For example, the analysis discovered that critical psychology offers a lot of criticisms on the mainstream psychology due to its failure to consider the role of the differences in power among different groups and social classes in influencing the social well-being of any given individual.

In addition, it was evident that the gender variation in suicide rates and diagnosis of depression among men and women can be explained adequately by the theory of hegemonic masculinity. This is attributable to the fact that men and women have different biological responses as well as differ in terms of social power, which explain why women have a high prevalence of depressive disorders while men show a high success rate of suicide.

References

Bianca, B & Heather, W 2015, ‘The relationship between biological sex and attitudes towards the sexuality of individuals with intellectual disability: Does gender ideology mediate this relationship?’ Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-3.

Bornstein, R 2005, ‘Reconnecting psychoanalysis to mainstream psychology: Challenges and opportunities’, Psychoanalytic Psychology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 323-340.

Canetto, S 2015, ‘Suicide: Why Are Older Men So Vulnerable?’, Men and Masculinities, vol. 1. No. 1, pp. 23-45.

Cardoso, F 2012, ‘The Relationship Between Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Among Males in a Cross-Cultural Analysis in Brazil, Turkey and Thailand’, Sexuality & Culture, vol. 17, no. 4, pp.568-597.

Emslie, C, Ridge, D, Ziebland, S & Hunt, K 2007, ‘Exploring men’s and women’s experiences of depression and engagement with health professionals: more similarities than differences? A qualitative interview study’, BMC Fam Pract, vol. 8, no. 1, p.43.

Evans, M & Barker, M 2010, ‘How do you see me? Coming out in counselling’, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 375-391.

Fernquist, R 2007, ‘How Do Durkheimian Variables Impact Variation in National Suicide Rates When Proxies for Depression and Alcoholism are Controlled?’, Archives of Suicide Research, vol. 11, no. 4, pp.361-374.

Kandrychyn, S 2004, ‘Geographic Variation in Suicide Rates: Relationships to Social Factors, Migration, and Ethnic History’, Archives of Suicide Research, vol. 8, no. 4, pp.303-314.

Marusic, A 2001, ‘Genetic risk factors as possible causes of the variation in European suicide rates’, The British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 179, no. 3, pp.194-196.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S 2001, ‘Gender Differences in Depression’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp.173-176.

Riggs, D 2011, ‘Queering evidence-based practice’, Psychology & Sexuality, vol. 2, no. 1, pp.87-98.

Sadi-Nakar, M 2010, ‘Doing Psychology, Doing Inequality: Rethinking the Role of Psychology in Creating and Maintaining Social Inequality’, Sociological Inquiry, vol. 80, no. 3, pp.354-376.

Shwalb, D & Shwalb, B 2007, ‘Global psychology and mainstream psychology: A call for dialogue’, PsycCRITIQUES, vol. 52, no. 36, pp.1-4.

Tissaw, M & Osbeck, L 2007, ‘On Critical Engagement with the Mainstream: Introduction’, Theory & Psychology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.155-168.

Tredoux, C 2005, ‘Psychology and law’, Lansdowne, South Africa.

Uzzell, D & Horne, N 2006, ‘The influence of biological sex, sexuality and gender role on interpersonal distance’, British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 45, no. 3, pp.579-597.

Click Here To Order Now!