And it is!

Insufficiently.

Like here in Europe.

It must be a very different kind of Europe than the one I live in.
I live in Germany and regularly encounter such troubles to find ecologically optimal products. Most of the time because there aren’t any available for me. Then there is a huge lack of transparency and sometimes of course the price. Although the latter is not really problematic for me, it is for a lot of other people. Those products, which are environmentally detrimental, are usually much cheaper than the ecologically better ones. You are being financially punished for choosing the better alternatives.

“free range” eggs

Despite the fact that a non-plant based diet is worse than a plant-based one in terms of ecological impact, the industry has been subject to a lot of critique due to insufficient regulations towards the treatment of egg-laying hens. Not only that, but also controls are often not conducted, even though it says so on paper.

The problem here is not Bezos, it’s YOU

Even if we neglect the ecological irresponsible business practises conducted by Bezos & friends, when it comes to individual ecological impact, wealthy people are usually causing a multitude of the damage which is caused by not-that-wealthy individuals. It seems to be a problem inherent to the lifesytle.

Most smaller delivery vehicles here in the UK are fully electric.

That’s cool. However, there is more to electric vehicles which must be considered when we think about ecological impact. (Lifetime, resources, production, etc…) Even if that’s given, this alone doesn’t solve the climate crisis. Although it certainly seems to be a nice step in the right direction.

Regarding the remaining list: that’s surely nice to hear. Still, there are still a plethora of unsolved problems. Even in your country.

And you don’t.

How about you don’t generalise a whole population?

Instead you ban contraception and abortions.

You must have mistaken me with someone from another country. It might help to be less prejudiced.

And it is!

Insufficiently.

Like here in Europe.

It must be a very different kind of Europe than the one I live in.
I live in Germany and regularly encounter such troubles to find ecologically optimal products. Most of the time because there aren’t any available for me. Then there is a huge lack of transparency and sometimes of course the price. Although the latter is not really problematic for me, it is for a lot of other people. Those products, which are environmentally detrimental, are usually much cheaper than the ecologically better ones. You are being financially punished for choosing the better alternatives.

“free range” eggs

Despite the fact that a non-plant based diet is worse than a plant-based one in terms of ecological impact, the industry has been subject to a lot of critique due to insufficient regulations towards the treatment of egg-laying hens. Not only that, but also controls are often not conducted, even though it says so on paper.

The problem here is not Bezos, it’s YOU

Even if we neglect the ecological irresponsible business practises conducted by Bezos & friends, when it comes to individual ecological impact, wealthy people are usually causing a multitude of the damage which is caused by not-that-wealthy individuals. It seems to be a problem inherent to the lifesytle.

Most smaller delivery vehicles here in the UK are fully electric.

That’s cool. However, there is more to electric vehicles which must be considered when we think about ecological impact. (Lifetime, resources, production, etc…) Even if that’s given, this alone doesn’t solve the climate crisis. Although it certainly seems to be a nice step in the right direction.

Regarding the remaining list: that’s surely nice to hear. Still, there are still a plethora of unsolved problems. Even in your country.

And you don’t.

How about you don’t generalise a whole population?

Instead you ban contraception and abortions.

You must have mistaken me with someone from another country. It might help to be less prejudiced.

How does that even go together? Being anti-vax and at the same time condemning people for not being vaccinated?

Get your facts straight next time.

This is also covered in others, more recent findings. Want me to dig them out for you?

If you wouldn’t buy that shit, Bezos won’t be selling that shit and there would be no pollution

Which is part of what I meant by:

“it is mainly due to our modern way of life and production”

But not in such a condemning way as you.
The fact, that you were able to write your comment, shows, that even you felt the necessity to buy stuff. And I am 100 % sure that the device, you used for that, was not produced free of GHG emissions or under ecologically (or even socially) perfect conditions. As bad as this is, this is the case for most people. But did you have a choice? Can you live an average life in our current society without stuff like that? Do you even have the option to choose alternatives?

That’s my point. This kind of “you buy, you choose” attribution of causal chains, is surely true to some degree. But imo it’s an oversimplification to label it completely like that. I can’t even buy fucking organically grown tomatoes in my closest supermarket. So I don’t even have the option to choose the better alternative. This also applies to several other basic foods. Yet, I also need them. Most of the times such items are more expensive than the worse ones. The latter is a huge deal for people who really don’t have that much money. So they literally can’t buy the better options.

The market self-regulates that kind of stuff by itself to some degree. But not completely. And policies worldwide, especially in industry nations, fail to address these issues, thereby fueling the problem. Then of course there are further problems, like a lack of education and awareness about it and so on.

Another thing: how easy do you find it to see which product is the better one from an ecological perspective? How do you know it’s not just greenwashing? Do you feel like it’s an easy choice?
If so, congratz, you are a lucky one. But for most of the rest of us, that’s really not made sufficiently transparent.

Again, something which needs to be regulated.

And then, Bezos and co. could make their whole business conpletely green. Do they want to? Nope. Bezos and co. also could decide not to take their private jets, or live in a private mansion, live lifestyles which cause so incredibly more emissions than the one of average Joes and Janes. And again, they decide against it. But yeah sure, go on making each customer and the whole of humanity responsible.

Not the amount of people are the problem, but their disregard for eco-systems, especially the failings of policies. Humanity managed to survive for thousands of years without fucking up the whole planet. Shit really started to spiral downwards since the industrial revolution.

I bet this is also somehow the immigrants’ fault. /s

(Looking at you, right-wing voters in EU. ò.ó )

Although I also think there is a correlatin between number of people and detrimental climate effects, it’s wrong to reduce the causes to that. Despite the fact that “the richest 10 percent of people produce half of the planet’s individual-consumption-based fossil fuel emissions, while the poorest 50 percent — about 3.5 billion people — contribute only 10 percent”, it is mainly due to our modern way of life and production. As you probably know, the climate started the downwards spiral since the industrialisation. If we werent producing so insanely much GHG-emitting stuff, it wouldn’t be such a problem. (Regarding temperature alone. There are of course also other detrimental effects on our eco-systems due to things like overuse of fertilisers for example.)

I bet, a lot of people felt that way throughout history.

However, given we have the internet, the best access for information we ever had, it’s really ridiculous how little people seem to care about spending some time to critically think about their election choice.

Sadly not just the USA.

where people with conservative-minded views act like words were discovered in a fucking meteor crater

Hahaha, I love that part. :D

Compared to other religions, I understand that take, if we neglect stuff like not living up to their own doctrine of, e.g., equal rights between women and men, or the Khalistan movement, which has caused death and abused human rights on several occasions, also by killing civilians.

Still, as most organized religions, it became emergent as a tool of mass control and subjugation. Moral behaviour is not formed by critical thought and self-reflection, but by devotion to some mysterious higher power. Which is and always has been a core issue of problematic behaviour we can so often observe today with religious people. A side-effect is that it has the danger of hindering progress and societal evolution by having a creationism as one of it’s core teachings, as far as I know.

A further form of subjugation, hindering freedom of individual human (and harmless) expression, can be found among the Kakkars. For example the “dress-code” with having uncut hair, cotton undergarments etc…

I could go on. So to make it short, no, religions are usually detrimental for the long term constructive development of humanity and Sikhism is no exception.

globally important

This is continually decreasing.

It’s even funnier that the website itself is still using “twitter” as URL.

Or are they local?

Religion is usually bad, so I don’t have an issue lumping them all together.

Where I come from men’s clubs are illegal. So yes, like it or not it’s already been proven to have happened.

Could you provide more context please? Where is it you come from where men’s clubs are illegal? And what are the reasons for them being illegal?

I like how you think know what all women have ever done though.

First of all, I’m sorry. It seems I’ve misread your comment. I thought you were generalising, which I find usually wrong to do. Especially in such rather sensitive contexts like these. That’s why I’ve put “they” in quotation marks in my previous comment in order to counter that generalisation. But after re-reading, I’ve noticed that you’ve written “some women” not women in general. So I’m going to revise that part. (After I’ve sent this comment I will also strike the coresponding sections in my previous comment.)

Regarding your experience with your housemate, needless to say that this was shitty of her and certainly not a meaningful approach to improve mental health of men.

I’m not sure whether it’s relevant now anymore to reply to the remaining parts of your response, but I’ll do so anyway in case this is still relevant to you:

Here’s a genuine question. Why do you, my housemates, other women think they know absolutely what is best for mental mental health when it goes against what men even say? […]

I don’t claim to know what is best. But I claim that there are detrimental mindsets deeply rooted into our society which is severly problematic for the mental health of men. That’s what’s usually also refered to as “toxic masculinity”. For different reasons I therefore think that a shift in how we are raising men and dealing with men’s mental health is necessary. Those reasons include, but are not limited to, the following:

• I’m a man myself. Having experienced that pressure from my parents, some teachers, peers and basically society in general, has left me to this day with the feeling of shame when I’m feeling low. Gladly, I took the step to seek therapy due to a lot of shit that has happened in my life. But it clearly cristalises that - currently - I can’t accept for myself that it’s okay to have negative emotions and seek help or talk to others about that. It’s much better than in the past, but it’s so deeply burnt into my mind that it is still an obstacle a lot of times.
  I have no issues in accepting that in other men or people in general. To the contrary, I encourage everyone not to feel ashamed about how they feel, that it’s okay, etc… Because I know from first hand experience how bad this can be, especially if you’ve got a lot of other issues anyway.
• Sometimes I volunteer in supporting people who seek help with their issues in life or mental health. Sometimes it’s stuff like “suicide watch”. I’ve also got cases among my friends where I see that pattern repeating: If people don’t deal with their shit, it usually has bad consequences in the long run. And among men is a high prevalence of cases which simply don’t seek help and can’t really deal with their issues in a longterm beneficial way. Men are usually experiencing high difficulties with even talking about such matters. This has also been observed in several studies and is - as far as I know - a well-known phenomenon among psychologists.
• I am in therapy and my therapists basically confirmed that.

To avoid a misunderstanding, let me make one thing very clear:
I am not against men having their “guy stuff”, meeting in their interest groups and doing the stuff they like together. To the contrary, this is really good stuff! It’s much better than sitting alone in the dark like a lot of depressed people do, myself included. It is usually very beneficial and helpful. (Depending of course also on stuff like the “social battery” of individuals.)
Psychological therapy for depression is in some parts also about finding what someone brings joy and developing some base stabilisation which helps them to go for that. In other words, men, who go to therapy, are also asked what they would like to do, what makes them feel good and so on. And therapists can help to enforce such mentally beneficial behaviours. Having a functioning social life is certainly one of the big factors. Distraction is also not always bad, it is also sometimes even encouraged. Now comes the,

But:

If men, despite enjoying such things, have concurrent issues, and such distractions and activies rather become a manifestation of “running away” or avoidance in general, those issues usually won’t go away. Those issues will still linger and for each passing day may get worse and worse until those people - and this is regardless of gender - develop further dysfunctionalities which become increasingly difficult to deal with. And with men, as I said, it is usually difficult to get them to “deal with their stuff” due such reasons as toxic masculinity. Heck, it took over a decade until I got myself to seek therapy and I am angry with myself that I didn’t do it much earlier.

Going on:

I’ve got a lot more support from men than I have from women. And I’ve seen guys get a lot more hurtful abuse from women than I have from men. But that goes against the narrative that all issues in the world are caused by the patriarchy and that women can do no wrong.

Good for you, that you got supportive men around you! Women are also people and people can be assholes. I’m sorry for you and the other guys who have seen abuse.

That certainly depends on the people though. Be among toxic men, get rekt. Be among toxic women, get rekt. Be among nice and empathetic men/women, and it’s the other way around. However, toxic masculinity is a thing and there is plenty of evidence that men have usually more issues with dealing with their issues than women. As I’ve noted in my other comment before, that doesn’t necessarily has a causal relation relationship. You can have patriarchy, which systematically treats women as “less” in various aspects, and you can have toxic masculinity, where men and sometimes also women make life hard for other men. The one does not necessarily cause the other as they can, but must not, co-exist independently.

I think the one take-away for everyone is: don’t be an asshole.

If the suicide rate is so high for men maybe we should start by asking men what they need? How would having women telling them everything that they have done wrong a good thing?

The problem is, that a lot of men don’t talk much about what they need, though. It’s difficult to even get them there. But if they do, then sure, as long as we can make sure that such behaviour is not that kind of avoidance I mentioned earlier. Women are raised differently and are therefore usually (not generally) better in dealing with such issues and providing empathetic support. However, I don’t think we should listen to one gender only, as gender alone does not necessitate virtue. Regarding mental health, I think we should listen to two parties: 1. the affected person and 2. the experts, which are mostly psychologists.

What women cannot understand is men are different to women. We act in a different way to you and that’s perfectly okay. What is not okay is women telling men how they need to act.

I’m sure that there are a plethora of women out there who don’t have issues in understanding that men and women are different. That’s an uncautious generalisation of you there.
Also, I’m a man, my dude. ;)
“One telling the other how to act” must not be a bad thing if it comes from a good place. If we regularly see how men are systematically struggling worse than women with mental health issues, then it’s surely in their best interest to start pushing for beneficial changes. What those changes are, should be left to the experts though, and not to gender differences among people. Despite that, I think that it wouldn’t hurt if a lot of men (those, struggling with opening up and dealing with their issues) would take some inspiration from women or people in general who have it easier with that.

Also if you want to do a bit of reading go find all the questions on the internet to the effect of “why don’t you open up to your girlfriend” and you can hear all the horrific ways women use men’s vulnerability against them. You can see the general consensus being that more often than not opening up to women makes things worse because of how women react to a vulnerable man and that if you need to talk about problems do it with men.

Well, that’s surely shitty. But not the general consensus I noticed, nor the one observed in studies. Mind that looking for such questions is already a bias in the data itself. We can already estimate intuitively that those, who talk about difficulties in talking to their girlfriend/spouse are more likely to be in a toxic relationship itself or in one where miscommunication on both sides may be a problem. Look for the same question the other way around and you’ll probably get a similar picture. This also doesn’t equate to all the cases where such interactions with women don’t have negative outcomes. Mainly, because people usually don’t go on the internet and tell them how well their relationship is or how much they enjoyed talking to their women-friends. So, to get the full picture, representative surveys must be conducted. This also fully neglects the plethora of men who don’t even talk at all to anyone, which is, as far as I know, the much higher number of cases.

(EDIT: misread and therefore misinterpreted the parent comment. Thought, it was a generalisation on all women. Striked out relevant sections here.)

but why are some women so against men being happy?

“They” aren’t.

Like they want do to everything in their power to take away “guy stuff”

“They” don’t.

But the fact they don’t like it means that no one else should and men are wrong because they do something women don’t.

That’s a bizarre perception you have there.

I strongly believe that men’s mental health is positively impacted by male groups.

Having a supportive peer group, regardless of gender, can be helpful, yes.

No, not allowed they should be ashamed of themselves.

Where tf do you get that from?

I think it’s a really issue in society and you never ever hear women criticise women’s role in negatively impacting men. But somehow I bet this is all the patriarchy’s fault

Are you mixing two different things now? Feminism and men’s mental health?

Regarding the latter, patriarchy is not necessarily a cause for this. It’s rather male role models and toxic masculinity. Countless of men worldwide are raised in a way which is unhealthy for their mental state. “Don’t cry! That’s what girls do! Don’t be such a baby!” Those men don’t learn how to deal with their issues and emotions. They develop several kinds of problems as a result of that. Either a drug addiction problem like drinking, and/or spiraling down depression until they kill themselves, get anger issues or whatever. The suicide rate in men is higher as in women due to stuff like that. They have never learned that it’s okay to ask for help. They are rather being shamed for feeling low.

That’s what this post makes a pun about: a lot of such men rather find some coping mechanisms instead of dealing with their issues. They seek distractions. That’s not necessarily a bad thing per se, but, in the larger scale of seeing how many men avoid dealing with their shit, it can certainly become one.
It’s certainly not about women wanting to take “guy stuff” away, wtf. Oo

It would be like if were constantly maiming and injuring people and saying the problem was not enough people going to physical therapy.

In that I kind of agree with you. Many problems can be traced back to societal issues. Hell is other people. That’s why we need to do better.
Sending those, damaged by society, to therapy is necessary, but we wouldn’t be there if several root causes wouldn’t exist.

Like if we just took blackrock’s real estate and put homeless people in it the mental health crisis would just be like 80% solved. I’m not even kidding.

Oversimplification, imo. But this is surely a contributing factor.

When your keyboard is remapped, you commit those changes yourself.

You do you. :)

I don’t think that this makes it wrong. As I see it, the meaning of your advice is to prioritize self-care over work. It surely helps with mental and physical health. And I think this also applies to people saving lifes of others like medical doctors. They are also still people, they can also suffer from that kind of work. And I always prefer a doctor who thinks about getting enough sleep and quality time in life over someone who drives themselves mad and makes themselves sick by burdening the whole world on their shoulders.

If they can’t help themselves, how can they help me?
Or, 101 of car crashes, first save yourself before you attempt to save others.

There are also others who help. It’s not one single person’s job to save everyone.

If someone says X, but does Y, this doesn’t mean they are not right about X.

Other example, if someone is raising public awareness about littering in nature and is then caught throwing a plastic bottle into a forest, does that mean they are wrong?

Sure, it’s shitty, but that doesn’t make them wrong in saying that people shouldn’t do it, even if they are not living up to their own words.