He means for normal people, sure if you go around assaulting people like you could in the unenlightened times you get more pressure. What you both mean by "pressure" is oversocialization you are just looking at 2 sides of the same coin. Well his point is more about people feeling uncared for, I doubt that drives people to suicide. One explaination is that is could this mental l strain could increase the liklihood for mental illness, but that's flat for men in the articles age bracket. You posit that people kill themselves because they have a tough life, again that isn't born out in the data. Indeed collecting data for this is akin to hitting a dartboard while drunk and skydiving and the board is 2 miles away.
The point of society you can increase "true freedom" by restricting people's ability to act arbitrarily, so called "naive freedom". If people can't accept that then they can go live in the woods (not anymore), the ocean, the moon? mars? or end it.
From time immemorial the winners shaped society what do you think happened to the losers? Just because we leave them alive now doesn't mean they can live in the new world.
Also "highest ever" among some specific arbitrary demographic isn't very meaningful enough to draw out anything beyond free association.
> "highest ever" among some specific arbitrary demographic isn't very meaningful
It's meaningful if you do actually happen to be of that demographic. It's no longer arbitrary then, sure, but I do care quite a lot if something bad is affecting men because I'm one of those.
Not only that, but many of the people I care most about in the world are men too ! probably a bit over half!
Also, how specific is "middle aged men"? thats a huge portion of society - I'd have understood your point if this was about like, people employed as painters in texas. But this has such a huge N, alongside a relatively unambiguous test (I trust reporting of these statistics more or less)