https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040920063537.h...
This is far from as clear as people think it is. Foragers - as we were for the vast majority of our evolutionary history as humans - don't have lots of kids. They usually keep on the move, and that means carrying children, until they are maybe 4 years old. Having a life-mate to help you carry a four year old probably helps a lot.
It remains that humans are the most monogamous animals alive, by a mile. Other pair-bonding animals, like pigeons, cheat a ton compared to humans. When you look at pair-bonding animals, it's often those where the males are crucial to the offspring's survival, and where raising offspring demands a lot of resources from the parents. Human children are unable to survive on their own until the age of ten, at the most optimistic. So both the evolutionary story and the observed facts in forager societies (and our own too, in many ways) suggest that fathers matter a lot.
> Historically, only half of men ever passed their genes on
If I recall that paper correctly, of the men living at a certain point in time, only half have descendants today, whereas almost all the women have. This difference, over thousands of years, may have arisen from very small differences adding up over the generations for all we know.
The office for national statistics has great data. It's particularly useful because they define what they mean.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
And we also have great data available under the Fingertips system. http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile-group/mental-health/pro...
I posit that many supposed gender differences are rooted in the different life experiences of the sexes:
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/03/princesses-d...
That is, they both have a bunch of pills or a rope lying around but that doesn't mean they both choose them.
I went though my desk drawers, etc. I found some pills, maybe decongestants, and decided that would probably not kill me. I found an exacto knife in my art supplies and decided to cut my wrist with it. I failed to hit a major artery. There was very little blood.
In contrast, I believe my brother's room had a gun, a bow and an encyclopedia of true crime. Had he attempted suicide while locked in his room, there would have been dramatically greater access to effective means and useful information for actually ending up dead.
I will suggest that women generally have less access to effective means, generally have less exposure to subjects relevant to figuring out how to end a life, and that women are typically subjected to a greater amount of social control that limits their ability to act.
Men are more likely to be infantrymen, police officers, hunt as a hobby, etc. Thus, they are just more likely to know how to kill something.
Additionally, successful suicides occur when you are alone. Men seem to have more opportunities to actually be alone, an observation I made years ago on a different forum about a different subject.
Women typically make less money than men, so they are less likely to be able to afford a place of their own. They tend to have roommates. Following a divorce, women are more likely to get custody of the children. So, post divorce, men are more likely to be living alone, women are more likely to be living with kids.
Etc.
If you attempt suicide with other people at home, you need to keep it a secret. If they find out, they will stop you. Simply having other people around is a deterrent to succeeding. It is hard to very quietly, secretly off yourself.
So, I think one factor is that women are less likely to have sufficient privacy, for lack of a better word, to succeed.