This is the modern world: teen male suicides spiked to almost 15 per 100,000 in 2015, but the headline and point of the article is to focus on teen female suicides, which have also risen . . . but to a mere 5.1 per.
This is the truth, men and boys: you are expendable. The general tenor of the culture expresses concern far more for girls than for boys, women more men, and in this case the difference of concern can be expressed as a mathematical ratio.
And let us not pretend that we are witnessing some sort of outlier, here. This sort of unequal concern, by sex, is visible in courts as well as headlines, in taxpayer-funded programs as well as colleges, in legislation as well as lifeboats.
Nevertheless, I suppose we can quibble to whom, precisely, we should impute this specific case of unequal interest:
- to the female author of the piece,
- to the editors of the site (it was picked up elsewhere, too, verbatim),
- to their expectation of reader preference, or
- to the readers themselves.
But experience allows me to make a generalization: this fits with the actual (rather than professed) aim of feminism, which is to promote women over men and girls over boys. Feminism has not been about sexual equality. It is a particularist, not a universalist ideology.
If this still astounds you, consider: doctrines of equality do not get named by merely one of the two things said to be equal.
Do not think, however, that I am especially incensed about this radical sexual inegalitarianism in favor of what used to be called “the fairer sex.” The preference is not new. It is biological, really, and boils down to the economy of scarce eggs and abundant sperm. I am subject to the bias myself.
But it does give us a cause for several distinct reactions:
- To doubt patriarchy theory;
- To conclude that feminism is a form of sexism; and
- To chortle.
Popular modern moral crusades (such as feminism) are risible, and their pretensions to lofty idealism cannot be believed by honest inquirers.
Young men: learn to laugh. Your enemies are many, but they are indeed ridiculous.
twv
CNN’s article was ably mocked this weekend by Sargon of Akkad, who noted that the gist of the piece (which he said drove him “nuts”) gives some cause to acknowledge the claims of Men’s Rights activists.
Wirkman Comment 
There is no reasonable question that, for some time now, very nearly everyone who self-identifies as a “feminist” has been a particularist, invoking the dictionary definition exactly and only as a way of gulling people (especially young woman) who have been defining “feminism” and its coördinate based upon the observation.
But, at the time that the term was introduced, there was wide-spread agreement that woman were accorded inferior status. Given that, it was natural to associate the pursuit of equality with the elevation of women.
The word choice proves to be grossly unfortunate, because of the combined effects of stupidity and of rent-seeking.
My own response is not to insist that “feminism” must be defined differently from how it is in standard dictionaries (given that indeed it is not naturally nor typically used with that definition), but that its use ought to be avoided, and that those who use it should be asked to clearly define what they mean by this term.
To put an end to the confusions here, what we really need are two rival terms, neither of them awkward and each transparent. The first would be associated with social orders that were simply blind to sexual difference. The second would describe social orders that never spuriously treated sexual differences as relevant. But I don’t possess either of those terms.