There has been a buzz around the South Florida community recently related to a rash of tragic murder/suicides that have devastated several families.

Some of these incidents have affected the Caribbean-American community, in particular. Just last week, tragedy afflicted a young Jamaican-American family in Sunrise. One unfortunate, but common thread in these tragedies is that the perpetuators have been the senior male – husband, father or live-in-lover – member of the household.

The buzz, heard mostly on recent radio talk shows, is focused on the alleged insecurity of men. The allegation is that men are inherently insecure beings, and their insecurities are enhanced by the challenges brought on by the tough economic times, thus weakening their ability to cope with various setbacks.

It is a fact that men have been seriously affected by the adverse economy. Several sources of data indicate that more men have lost jobs and have more problems finding employment than women, regardless of the extent of their experience and qualifications. Suddenly, an increasing number of men are finding that they are no longer the primary breadwinner, but are dependents of the women in their households.

The situation is more acute among male immigrants, as it is not unusual for men who migrate to the U.S. to have difficulty finding employment or earning salaries higher than they were accustomed to back home, while their women are working and earning more than they are.

Although these factors are a source of extreme frustration for several men, there is no scientific proof that men are more insecure than women. Several studies on both male and female human behavior have not found any conclusive evidence that men are the more insecure or weaker of the genders.

What behavior specialists have determined is that like most other social behavioral patterns, the male attitude is based on tradition or socialized norms. It is the society, based on the position in which it traditionally places men, that has created the illusion of male security, and now, male insecurity.

Traditionally, in most societies, men were the dominant member of the family. Men went out to hunt food, and as societies advanced, went out to work on farms, fields, construction sites, in factories, offices, etc., and adequately provided for their women and families. Women mostly remained at home, caring for the children and performing household chores. Male dominance extended outside of the home, to other key areas of the society - the workplace, politics, and the composition of governments.  Men paid the bills, made the decisions, and generally, women remained subservient. 

As societies modernized, and the cost of living increased, it became harder for one individual to support the family, making it necessary for women to find gainful employment. As more women left the confines of the home, became better educated and qualified for the workplace, they began to be more assertive, filling and taking over positions that were traditionally held by men.

Generally, in most modern societies, especially in the Western World, women are now less dependent on men for their economic survival. In many societies in the east, women are forced to be subservient to men, not even allowed to attend school or work, just to preserve the illusion of male security. 

The situation in the West breeds levels of insecurities for some men, which worsen as women become the primary breadwinner in the family. Gradually the male ego is devastated.  It is argued that some men also develop sexual insecurities along with the economic insecurity; building up levels of distrust, believing when their women leave the house they behave unfaithfully. More significantly, these insecurities often lead to depression and the two often become a powerful, dangerous mix. 

However, despite the modern challenges, there is no justification for a man, after finding himself in an adverse financial situation, and being unable to adequately provide for his family, to resort to killing them. This is the action of pitifully weak men. Strong men find alternative, positive, means of overcoming adversity. 

It is a conscious decision to act in such a violent, destructive manner. A man is hardly coerced by others to violently eliminate himself and his family. One behavior specialist wrote that even in eliminating their families, the male perpetuator still displays dominance. The man is saying, “I created this family, so I can eliminate it.” This is a dangerous mindset – one that the rest of the society including family, counselors and religious leaders, have difficulty in changing. The prevailing argument that society should help men cope in times of adversity, may not always work against this domineering mindset. 

Ultimately, it is left to each man to adequately adjust to adversities in his life. The rest of the society can try to help, but society cannot experience the depth of frustration that leads to grave insecurities. But to protect families, particularly the children who are too often victims, society has to remain vigilant that men displaying these insecurities do not execute decisions involving the elimination of their families.

---

Add this article to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites