If you ever read any game theory you'll quickly learn why men suicide at such a high rate in the US. Basically it's about branding people as 'winners' and 'losers' and those who share, yep you guessed it, are definitely 'loser'.

So you think of a pie which is meant to be divided somehow - the winner would get all the pie and the loser none. That might be nice for the winner if they can eat a whole pie but then the rest of us miss out and the winner has to spend way longer at the gym. If you like working out then that's awesome for you. Meanwhile, everyone else is hungry and with the zero-sum game mentality, you probably don't care because you just ate the pie. It's not until the 'winner' needs heart surgery from eating too much that they'll wish they had shared the pie with the heart specialist and the other hospital staff because in the meantime they starved to death.

While you may think you're doing best getting all or most of the pie while others get none, nobody else matters in this equation - it's a superficial win, and bad for you, ultimately, because it's the attitude that'll cause you to suicide.

You see they did research to figure out what made rich white men happy - and then they decided to broaden the research to figure out what made poor (white) men happy. And what they found was that all the money or pie in the universe doesn't make you happy. what makes people happy are their relationships to other people (not pie or money).

Feeling useful and needed is one of the best preventatives against suicide - not eating all the pie. Feeling useful and needed isn't only a preventative against suicide, it is also useful in curbing addictions.

Still you don't have to have the intellect of Einstein to figure out when we're all better off, we're all better off.

While this makes perfect sense to me, even if it is as simple as, if my neighbors kids have opportunities and good income they aren't breaking into my house - they don't need state funded rehab or prison time - all things that my tax has to fund - and even if my tax is funding a great education for my neighbors kids, it means later they'll have good jobs either in other people's businesses or their own and they can finance my retirement. If my neighbors kids are in prison or rehab their prospects will be bad and not great for adding to the economy, other than as cash cows for men who own and operate prisons and rehabs.

Plus they have found that when there is greater economic equality in a country, everyone is better off, and greater inequality is bad for everyone.

 I hate this meme - yeah i know it's meant to be funny, and that's how people who use it think it's meant to be see - as merely funny - but it's not.

You see women are policed for being too fat/thin, good mothers, whether they are too slutty, whether she is/was asking for it... now this meme is telling us we have to police women to keep it 'real' too.  "real" as opposed to 'snooty' which i guess we have to figure out whether the woman looks too rich and it's only really men who are allowed to be rich.

Some people have tried to pass it off as 'people' but it explicitly states women and grocery store? Well that is a job women do, buy the groceries. But there are men who do go grocery shopping and one man who I talked to about sharing this said "men do keep it real in the grocery store".. seriously, this guy has polled every man who goes shopping?

Aren't we over policing women yet?

My other real problem is - whether we deem a woman is too snooty at a store is trivial to the real shit that is going on in the world - men still aren't being policed for violent behavior, and as soon as I said that - you thought - not all men are violent.

The other night I was watching the Prime documentary on Lorena Bobbitt. I wasn't in the US at the time this happened, I only heard about it through the filter of press in which ever country I was in at the time and it was all treated as a horrible joke - where women in the US were out of control running around willy-nilly chopping men's penises off like it was the new fashion or something - and the description of the search for the missing member was astonishing - the trouble they went to! Once women's clits are chopped off in countries they still do that in, is there a search? - I don't think so and no one would consider reattaching a clit anyway.

I digress.

The brutality with which Lorena had been treated by her husband was completely ignored by the press despite the televised case. The story is still thought of as "she chopped his penis off because he was supposedly cheating". From what I can gather from the documentary Lorena would have been happy if he'd been cheating.

The documentary did touch briefly on John's upbringing - and it was NOT pretty. I think John lost both parents at an early age was no doubt the product of pedophilia, violence and who knows how much verbal and emotional abuse.

Nevertheless, having violence inflicted upon you, physical, emotional, sexual, is no excuse to do it to other people. It possibly is the only option for people who have known no other life, perhaps, and don't know it is possible to deal with situations in other ways, but you do NOT have to perpetuate violence in any of it's forms. It is a choice.

Female journalists wanted to write articles about domestic violence but their male editors shut them down (rich white men own and operate pretty much everything), according to the documentary, saying, "nobody wants to hear about that stuff". But the mainstream media is how we learn so much about our society.

Boys and men are the primary recipient of violence, and although some women may be violent, most of the violence males experience is at the hands of other men. Males are nearly four times more likely to be murdered than females, males are nearly 10x more likely to murder than females. It should be noted about half of all murders are never solved. But when it comes to domestic violence, men are about 5x more likely to kill their wives than a woman is likely to kill her husband.

I did see a static once showing that males are 3x more likely than a female to be murdered by male, but it was a while back and I can't find the reference now. Also most of the violence, sexual and physical males experience is at the hands of other males.

We need to speak about this, rather than worry whether a woman is too snooty, ffs. We worry about women so much because, i think more than anything, we're afraid of men, men are afraid of men.

This is keeping it really real: men have a man problem.

Interestingly John Bobbitt got off for raping his wife, yet Lorena was sentenced - even though she went to a psychiatric facility, which I think she thought was useful for her. I think this shows a bias in the justice system, and that it's about maintaining the social order, so the justice system is biased towards white men. And if you want to know how biased society and our justice system is, have a look at Gary Southern. I bet you are asking yourself who is Gary Southern. In my opinion this guy has done much worse than any woman has ever done, yet he is not a household name.

The problem is that men have created a hierarchy men which they live under and force the rest of us to live in as well, because might makes right and that's how you ascend the hierarchy.

It's something most feminists never discuss unless we are talking about the forcible castration (sterilization) of females in the prison system and else where.  I guess guys get castrated, women get sterilized.

And it is as sexist as it is racist.

but feminists are constantly being accused of wanting men's balls as we see in this image although i found the image was used in reference to men who sexually assault children. But that is not what the image says, it implies we women enjoy taking men's balls.

But the reality seems to be otherwise. Men want to rid themselves of their balls because they are tired of being men. There was a period in Chinese history where the govt had to ban self castration because men where convinced that removing their balls would mean life would be better for them. I hate using wikipedia as a source because it's likely to change because some man may feel feminized by it.

The same idea is in Christianity as well - that to enter the kingdom of heaven, it's important to make yourself a eunuch. Now I know christians have tried to make this mean something else - IE they've tried to make this about marriage instead or something, but Jesus seems quite adamant about chopping things off that make you sin, and I think Jesus is trying to make this very clear here especially to men. Because men do use their gender as a weapon against women and children.

Indeed many civilizations have a long history of castrating men especially when it comes to guarding harems. And apparently making yourself a eunuch comes with all kinds of health benefits, such as preventing certain kinds of cancers, but what surprised me is that there are so many men who either fantasize about it or have actually harmed themselves giving themselves orchiectomies.

What also astonished me is that there is even literary porn written by men about the joys of having their balls removed. Amazon will even supply you with reading material on 'How and why i got castrated'.

While some may put this down to wanting wanting to transgender, clearly some men identify as female and want to transition their gender, but it doesn't account for the men just want to be free of their balls because "they showed a greater desire to reduce libido, change their genital appearance, transition out of male, and prevent sexually offensive behavior."

So next time you think a feminist is after a male's balls, we aren't. Perhaps it's you projecting your fantasy upon us.

Men have been falling over themselves since #MeToo to denounce the movement - from Terry Gilliam, Tony Robbins and all the way to Mike Pence who only talks to his wife, when it comes to women - I hope he hasn't got any daughters.

It's been pointed out before that this is Pence being sexist, of course. It's a way of keeping women in their place, it smells of an excuse to be rude to women who might talk to him, it's the same as those Islamic clerics who turn their backs to female teachers because they refuse to believe a woman can teach them anything, including English. (I used to be friends with a woman who taught English to middle eastern immigrants and she told me how some of these men would sit with their backs on her in class. Not all, but some did. I have no problem with Islam, it's the fundamentalists of all religions that are the real problem, whether it is Islamic, Judaism or Hare Krishna-ism...or Christian in the case of Pence.)

It is interesting to note that most of the men (that I am aware of) that came out against the #MeToo movement have issued apologies to the movement. It's curious how the initial denouncement made headlines but all the apologies were ignored.

Now Bloomberg has published an article stressing women have to be ignored and avoided when working on Wall St, which i saw last night and again today - which has been heralded as the greatest insight since sliced bread (did i just mix my metaphors? - oh well). I'm not the first to respond to this article, Sallie Krawcheck already has.

It's simple, just treat us like one of the guys but don't talk about sex in front of us. Would you grab a guys butt? brush your hand against his fly? Stop touching us.

How do the guys who were victims of other men's sexual advances feel about men denouncing the #MeToo movement?

Women are typically not vindictive - no more so than men are - or perhaps men are judging women by their standards, perhaps men are more vindictive than I ever realized - I don't know, I haven't done scientific studies into it - but i would love to.

Or perhaps it's time we do like Krawcheck does, just go off and do our own thing. I would trust Krawcheck with my money more than I would other investment firms on Wall St, and perhaps that's what these guys at Bloomberg and elsewhere are really worried about, we'll prove to be better at what we do than they are and we might even start treating them as badly as they've treated us over the years.

But one thing is certain, things won't change if we stop. We have to keep on going. We are no longer needed in the kitchen or cleaning house - we don't need to be devoted to reproducing - there are plenty of children in the world already, we have to do something, so we might as well fix the world, because men have made a mess of it.

Generally a reasonable show on HBO before the 2018 elections, but I'm not sure where it was, Dallas?, it wasn't their first show which HBO allow people to watch free, where a black woman came on and discussed the problem with white women voting for Trump.
But she's not the only one - typically I've seen a lot of left white male democrats come along and blame white women for voting for Trump. according to exit polls, white women voted for trump at a little over 50%, but not as bad as the 62% of white men who voted for Trump. exit polls are exit polls - who knows if they are lying or not.
what pisses me off about this meme and others like it, they always display women like women are the reason why trump was elected; that women are the stupid ones, that somehow the damage that trump is doing is harmless and that the women are able to do all this double think and illogic - because this is how stupid women are.
after all it is women who have a lot to lose if trump and his cronies are elected.

however if you look at the exit polls for 2018, women voted hard as they could.

below is the face of trump voters, which you will never see in a meme because this is terrifying, and as per normal white men are doing nothing about it but blame women - then expecting women to fix it, yet white men are doing nothing to fix the problem they created in the first place.

main-stream-media has carved us up into groups for the advertising industry - all owned and operated primarily by white men. they carved us up to elect a republican - in this case trump - white men paid to have us carved up.

men follow-the-leader, whoever that leader may be. yes it is bound to be a generalization, no doubt some men can actually think for themselves.

yes there are some women who will vote for trump - they are a part of our society - some women have been conditioned to believe all women are inferior to men, that perhaps some women are equal to men, that perhaps they are equal to men but no other woman is - i don't know what they think. as a feminist - i don't want all women walking in lock step with each other. i want women to be all different and unique.

So I am told Kavanaugh is a 'good' man by more than Trump, I've been told on Twitter, by google, facebook - it's everywhere, and remarkably even these republican woman even tell me - what boy hasn't done stuff like that in school - yikes - girls expect to be raped by all the 'good' men out there.

This man told me men shouldn't marry women or raise daughters who do political hit jobs. Although I am certain that hit jobs against Democrats would be okay.

Yet when I ask how would they feel if Kavanaugh got raped or raped a boy instead, there is silence. But one man who'd told me Kavanaugh is 'good' told me he suspected he'd been raped.

Yes I have sympathy for the guy - but I did say: well no doubt they were 'good' men who raped you, just like Kavanaugh is a 'good' man....

This guy accused me of not having any empathy that all I was trying to do was gain the political win. I told him where is your empathy for raped women?

Time and time again we should have sympathy for male rape victims but none for female rape victims? Why is that? I think it is because men want to believe women want it, or are asking for it... because I think men have the rape fantasy - they want women to rape them, they want to think they are that desirable.

Women don't go through the ordeal of accusing men of raping them unless it is true. There is this myth that women make up rape accusations because they are vindictive, that the sex was consensual but then he spurned her or some bullshit. It is estimated that false rape claims are at about 2%.

Trying to find the occurrence of other false accusations is difficult - anyone would think women have nothing better to do than accuse men of raping them, because even when googling false accusations of theft, identify theft, violence, drug use still give listings for false accusations of rape.

But it is one of those times when men get the benefit of privacy - we still give men the benefit of the doubt because we don't see them doing bad things in public.

We have a big problem with privacy. First of all, it's pretty much guaranteed we have pretty much none. Secondly there are those people who think we don't need any. Which I know most people will turn into 'well share your bank keycode with me and your other passwords...'. Yes we do want some privacy. Do people really want to hear me singing in the shower - listening will be your own punishment.

But we have a bigger problem with privacy - in that when people abuse (either sexually, emotionally or physically) their family they usually do this in the privacy of their own home. But privacy extends way beyond the home - it can be done in all manner of ways on the internet.

Well I won't go into corporations invading our privacy in our homes via computers and the IoT.

My issue is that all the invasion of our privacy via corporations doesn't protect us from those who'd harm us in our homes.

If you are being abused by a parent it's not like google or the NSA is going to come rescue you and stop the abuse.

Some while back on Facebook a guy I'd never met sent me a photo of his erection - in private. He sent it via direct message - so it was all done in private - you know - so everyone will continue to think this guy is a good guy because he'd never do such a thing - in private - because we can't see it - it probably never happened - right?

This is where privacy becomes part of rape culture - you see if the guy did come around to my house and physically raped me - it'd then become a matter of he said/she said. Because we've been acculturated to believe that rape is her fault - what was she wearing - in this case - what was my avatar on Facebook at the time - and no doubt Facebook knows what it was just in case such an event does occur and press charges. So then they both (the guy doing the raping and facebook) can prove I was being a saucy minx who had it coming.

It probably would never come out in court that I do not know this guy from a grain of salt.

Anyway, Facebook says it's not against community standards to send unsolicited photos of erect penises via direct message. And if something did happen no doubt it'd be back to he-said/she-said. When I reported the photo and person I got the above response from Facebook.

In other words, Facebook enables rape culture with their policy.

A friend with whom I discussed this said that this guy was 'figuratively' raping.

Why is it that the right like to go - ha! see! we were right - when something horrible happens. Example, the right like to keep 'undesirables' out - like Muslims fleeing somewhere in the middle east - and then when some of these 'Muslims' gang rape a woman - that's when they start gleefully saying they've been proven right.

Do I approve of the gang rape - of course not - but refugees need places to go - and this is what the left wants - is to help those in trouble. But because these people are coming from a vastly different culture - probably need help adjusting to the new culture they are now living in.

And who knows, perhaps these men had been bullied by people who were anti-refugee, and these men took revenge on this drunk woman.

I don't support pack rape, i don't support bullying, I support refugees and education. I don't expect refugees to be any more enlightened than anybody else - but the anti-refugee bullies are partially to blame as the rapists.

But there is a degree of schadenfreude on the part of the anti-refugee group - because the refugees were probably advocated by for the same crowd who support women's rights and the rape of a woman seems to them to be a kind of pay back.

But this isn't the only time we see this kind of schadenfreude from the right - I used to be friends with a gay man who was constantly putting up articles that policed women - for being overweight, for not shaving their armpits, for getting plastic surgery on various parts of their anatomy... yet I would advocate strongly for gay rights, I also advocate for the right of women not to be policed for stupid stuff that is harming no one but themselves.

But this is one of the things the right would probably laugh about, my expectation that those who I advocate for - will not turn around and spit in my face - and not support the same things I do.

But the realization should be mine - why should they care about things I care about - they assume different things to what I assume. But this should also be the realization of those enjoying their schadenfreude, that those who I might advocate for I don't expect to share my assumptions. 

My assumptions include things like: we already have enough people in the world, we already have children in foster care - we don't need women just producing children. We completely depend on a healthy functioning environment. Don't harm others - and help them if you can. Blame where blame is due, I don't care about people being overweight, getting plastic surgery or shaving their armpits... compared to men polluting the water, planet, destroying the environment, destroying the economy, murdering and hurting others... we need to start calling out those who need to be called out rather than policing women who are only hurting themselves. When women start murdering, shooting up schools and being as destructive as men can be - then we should start calling them out too.

But here I am generalizing about men and women again. Do no harm and it's all good with me.

The problem with those who are enjoying their schadenfreude is that's all they want - is to laugh at the left - and that is pretty lame.

We all need to be needed. We all need to belong. We all need other people.

But what about love?

I don't know what love is. We love all kinds of things, ice cream, our best friend, our significant other, our children, our favorite author, a TV show, a piece of clothing... it's the ultimate superlative in approval.

But perhaps we are confusing need for love. I don't really need most of these things, although on my list there are two listed who I do need - my significant other and my best friend. I do have a favorite author but I seldom read her books anymore, and although I need clothes - I have plenty.

We need to belong with other people who will take care of us when we need help if we're sick, who will help provide our requirements, food, shelter, care... they form a kind of context for our lives. These are the people we tell our sorrows, joys, thoughts and feel comfortable with.

these people are probably the most important people in the world to us and without them - we would probably have to replace quickly if something happened to them.

Not that it might be a straight replacement - several acquaintances might be able to replace a best friend.... in time.

I'm not talking about infatuation - a huge dash of sexual attraction and the intoxicating rush of hormones that has to pass or it isn't a real relationship until you are hip deep in the connection; and the knowledge of you needing them as much as they need you. You know all their faults, but you still like them well enough to want them to be in your life.

I know most people point to Jane Austen and say she wrote romantic comedies - and perhaps she did make pride and prejudice a fun read but her message was that marriage is a business arrangement that hopefully won't be too unpleasant. She was after all writing a book of economics for half the population of her society. And her aim was to balance the financial aspect with an agreeable business partner. While that may sound harsh - the reality is the most important job a woman performs in this arrangement is to give birth and that meant putting her life on the line every time she was due to deliver. In this day and age we think of giving birth as a simple biological process. It is not. It is dangerous for both the woman and her baby.

These are considerations men don't need to consider because women have been forced kept the dangers of child birth pretty much to themselves.

Of course there has also been a lot of social pressure on women to get married. Having a husband elevated women in society above those without a husband. Mainly because gaining income is often difficult for women.

Recently I came across this link with some theories of why human woman evolved breasts when other female mammals only have breasts when they lactate.

I have developed my own theory about this because none included in the link above were very convincing. First of all, it's well established that animals evolve quickest to secure mating. For instance animals will breed themselves into extinction or will make it more difficult to survive for the right to mate and examples of this are peacocks - male birds evolved their elaborate tails because peahens (girl peacocks) like them. So the guy bird displays his lovely tail and the girl checks it out and if she is impressed she'll select him to mate with. The problem with the tail is that it is heavy and huge and makes it more difficult for the male bird to escape a predator.

The case of the Irish Elk, the female elk's selected for males with the largest antlers to the point where the antlers became so large and heavy that it was difficult for the males to navigate forests, and even being able to lift his head. The species breed themselves into extinction.

This is what I think is going on with the female breasts. We evolved them despite how bad they are for human females - they are more likely to get cancer than other female mammals' mammary glands, they can be bad for the human's posture and make it difficult to run thus impinge on her ability to survive.

Nevertheless, men chose to breed with women with larger breasts and those were the women men helped raised their offspring.

I once read this comment on a discussion about abortion, that if you are a woman and enter 'wet t shirt' kinds of events then it's better to get pregnant before the event because it enlarges your breasts... and afterwards you can get an abortion. While I do not approve of either wet t shirt competitions and I definitely don't approve of getting pregnant to get bigger breasts and definitely don't think that abortion is a good solution, I also think that such a woman would NOT be a desirable mother and so abortion is probably the best outcome.

Anyway, this got me thinking that if guys are attracted to bigger boobs then evolving them is definitely a good idea especially if you want to attract a man for the purposes of breeding. Why are men attracted to boobs in the first place? When we have lost most markers that indicate a woman is 'in season', besides we don't want to merely attract a mate to merely breed, we need him to stick around until we give birth and afterwards so he can help raise the child and to bring home a share of whatever to help us survive whether that was originally meat, and now, money.... indicating breeding, boobs are a good indicator of fertility - she's already pregnant - hence she has boobs.

I think men feel protective of women who are pregnant.

Of course male humans behave like peacocks themselves, by flashing how much money they have around. Men making money is important in attracting a mate these days. Again it is upto women to choose their men wisely - we need to choose kind, good men rather than the kind of men who will do what it takes to make money.