See here also:

There is a reason why some feminists do actually show some support of talking about male suicide which is very odd, as they actively suppress most other male issues (see list at end). Sadly the reason for the support is not good, it is because male suicide fits into one of their narratives I,e, toxic masculinity, gender roles, and how feminism can help men. That is the only reason. However, there is a group of feminists also who want the discussion on male suicide to end, to not gender the issue and to focus back on women, as they attempt suicide more. Many feminise actually flip flop from the issue deeding on when it suits

Just a quick reply to a feminists trying to say no, womens suicide rates are higher so they are victims and need the main support YET AT THE SAME TIME claim toxic masculinity is the cause of male harm to mental health:

​

If women are committing suicide 4x the rate of men (I don't buy that, although I have seen some data to suggest that attempt it more often), have more depression and anxiety and all sorts of mental health issues, cant report abuse etc due to all sorts of mental and trauma blocks and stay with abusive partners.... why the hell are feminists saying toxic masculinity is the problem cause for male mental health issues or imply that men should be more like women, or women are wonderful and talk to each other and all that.... clearly the crisis is in women as you say yourself, as none of that female stuff they apparently do, and open up and talk, is helping them clearly is it? Women are killing themselve 4x as much according to you, and also being too indecisive to actually do it. You cant Balme toxic masculinity now all of a sudden, if it is female mental health care that is in crisis according to you!

if feminist bang on about men being responsible for violence, then sure, but that means on the whole they are responsible for inventing everything, discovering everything, exploring and pushing frontiers for humanity (oceans, space, new countries, continents, arctic, desserts etc), fine art, music, film, history, culture, billionaires, Nobel prize winners, billionaires and leaders... leaders even in female dominated industries and female activities such as fashion, shopping, makeup, cooking (so feminists can complain its because women are a minority, as men are a minority there and face social taboo in those fields but still end up on top)

Cant have it both ways mate.

About how it is odd for feminists to support male suicide despite normally opposing mens issues:

There was a proposal at Simon Fraser University (near Vancouver) to open up a men's centre on campus to address issues like suicide, drug/alcohol addiction, and negative stereotypes. The women's centre, which already existed, opposed this. They argued that a men's centre is not needed because the men's centre is already "everywhere else" (even though those issues aren't being addressed "everywhere else"). The alternative they proposed was a "male allies project" to "bring self-identified men together to talk about masculinity and its harmful effects" [1].

Author Warren Farrell went to give a talk on the boys' crisis (boys dropping out of school and committing suicide at higher rates) at the University of Toronto, but he was opposed by protesters who "barricaded the doors, harassed attendees, pulled fire alarms, chanted curses at speakers and more". Opposition included leaders in the student union [2] [3].

Three students (one man and two women) at Ryerson University (also in Toronto) decided to start a club dedicated to men's issues. They were blocked by the Ryerson Students' Union, which associated the men's issues club with supposed "anti-women's rights groups" and called the idea that it's even possible to be sexist against men an "oppressive concept" [4]. The student union also passed a motion saying that it rejects "Groups, meetings events or initiatives [that] negate the need to centre women’s voices in the struggle for gender equity" (while ironically saying that women's issues "have historically and continue to today to be silenced") [5].

Janice Fiamengo, a professor at the University of Ottawa, was giving a public lecture on men's issues. She was interrupted by a group of students shouting, blasting horns, and pulling the fire alarm [6].

At Oberlin College in Ohio, various students had invited equity feminist Christina Hoff Sommers (known for her individualist/libertarian perspective on gender) to give a talk on men's issues. Activists hung up posters identifying those who invited her (by their full names) as "supporters of rape culture" [7] [8].

A student at Durham University in England, affected by the suicide of a close male friend, tried to open up the Durham University Male Human Rights Society: "[i]t’s incredible how much stigma there is against male weakness. Men’s issues are deemed unimportant, so I decided to start a society". The idea was rejected by the Societies Committee as it was deemed "controversial". He was told he could only have a men's group as a branch of the Feminist Society group on campus [9].

At Saint Paul University (part of the University of Ottawa) on September 24th, 2015, journalist Cathy Young gave a talk on gender politics on university campuses, GamerGate, the tendency to neglect men's issues in society, and the focus on the victimization of women (in the areas of sexual violence and cyberbullying). She was met by masked protesters who called her "rape apologist scum" and interrupted the event by pulling the fire alarm [10].

In 2015, the University of York in the U.K. announced its intention to observe International Men's Day, noting that they are "also aware of some of the specific issues faced by men", including under-representation of (and bias against) men in various areas of the university (such as academic staff appointments, professional support services, and support staff in academic departments) [11]. This inspired a torrent of criticism, including an open letter to the university claiming that a day to celebrate men's issues "does not combat inequality, but merely amplifies existing, structurally imposed, inequalities". The university responded by going back on its plans to observe International Men's Day and affirming that "the main focus of gender equality work should continue to be on the inequalities faced by women". In contrast, the University of York's observation of International Women's Day a few months earlier was a week long affair with more than 100 events [12].

Some of these femintis in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cMYfxOFBBM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha2E5aQ7yb8

A long list of feminists blocking mens rights:

http://archive.is/AWSEN

Dont foget Karens Straughans excellent post in reposnse to a feminists saying these are not true feminists:

Karen Straughan:

So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".

You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."

You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.

You're not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.

You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.

You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.

You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.

You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.

You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.

You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history."

You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them.

And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.

No...You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.

​