In my previous post I started talking about systems and how women tended to be better at being able to see the big picture; and the problem with men managing  big projects is that they tend to be task-focused rather than looking at the consequences of the big picture.

This is why history focuses on specific men in history, like Churchill, generals, presidents because all those men who worked for The Man disappear into the hierarchical organization that allowed The Man to accomplish whatever task, such as running a country or winning a war... Thus The Man appears greater because he (in large part is due to his organization, attributed to his leadership) achieved something big. [In my opinion, this is why men who build businesses or corporations don't think they needed their employees, customers, government... to help them build their business - all those people he depended on for help disappear in the task of building the business]

This is primary reason we have so many problems with environmental collapse: men are focused on their quarterly reports to stockholders rather than the fuck-up their industry is causing the planet. Pollution is beyond the scope of their task, to make money; the rest is irrelevant. They only care about what involves money and what will hurt their corporation and how they will continue to make money.

My husband says that when you are (a man and) part of a hierarchy you are only looking at your boss and those below you to get the task done. This very quickly narrows your perspective. And men who get to the top of corporations likely were raised never having to tidy their bedrooms - that was either a job for their mother or the maid/nanny.

Women are generally better at being able to see the consequences of their actions because they focus on more than the immediate tasks to be accomplished; instead, they anticipate and plan for the consequences of what they do.  This may be primarily due to social conditioning -- after all, men, and seemingly especially those men who are groomed for positions of privilege and leadership in our society, are often raised to believe that the rules do not apply to them ("boys will be boys!") whereas women are raised to respect the rules... and thus have to be more aware of the consequences of their actions.

--

Why is the difference between how men and women think important?

Men tend to follow the leader, line up behind other men, and seldom learn to think outside the box. This is especially evident when it comes to Artificial Intelligence. The men who implement AI don't try to make it better by experimenting seriously with the algorithms. It takes women to truly experiment;  we see but one example, historically, with Admiral Hopper especially. She was told not to write a compiler by her male bosses, who were quite happy with the idea of having one, perhaps two computers, per town - they weren't interested in putting computers into every home. But Hopper wrote the compiler and here we are.

The same old ugly techniques of developing AI becomes a problem when you hear about cases like Google's awful racist image-recognition misfire (which was patched, rather than carefully understood).  It seems to me that for really outside the box thinking, you need women, because men do tend to (in no small part due to social conditioning) fall in line. Men can really only see one way to solve the problems with AI.

And this is important for space travel - okay wait a minute, how did we get from AI to space travel?

Well I think our civilization won't come of age until we learn to live in harmony with our environment. We might have to manage our environment but we must master ourselves to live with the confines of our environment because we depend on it. We and our technology can only function within a very narrow range of temperatures and even if we build colonies on the moon and Mars we will still be dependent upon earth for technology and our environment.

Our biggest problem is that we are all so dependent upon each other we don't see how the person who builds the circuit board in our mouse depends on, for instance, the technology of growing coffee. And the many steps in a supply chain are needed to make something as taken-for-granted as computer mice. So when we are living in our colony on the Moon we will still need the next shipment from earth for something as seemingly prosaic as a replacement mouse.

However mastering our environment -- controlling our use of it so it becomes sustainable -- will be a major milestone for our civilization. It will signal that we have come of age, that we are an adult species.  We have made steps towards our civilization's adulthood before - by walking on the moon and seeing a new perspective of ourselves and the universe. We avoided a nuclear war (so far) - and the cold war ended (or so we thought) without a nuclear war.

These are milestones - but the other one will be to manage our world - by managing our environment and making sure we don't get wiped out by an asteroid. We have been lucky so far but these steps are salient in protecting the future of our species.

Because in my opinion - while space is massive - it is massive, in some sense, to protect the rest of the universe from us. And we won't be able to traverse space until women break us out of Einstein's light box - because you see that is what limits our ability to traverse space. The same thing that cripples our AI - calculus, at least as a way, or rather, THE way, of understanding everything.

In my opinion we need to realize what women bring to the table - which so far men think is pretty useless because they think they know everything - they make everything mysterious to control knowledge - and thus women and their knowledge has been marginalized.

There are vastly different ways of seeing the universe than merely using calculus (the mathematical backbone of physics).

But women's ideas have become mainstream for the benefit of men. One of the fundamental axioms of womanhood is that women form equalities. It doesn't take much to step from equalities to the notion that 'all men are created equal'.

Another is women being upset about rape has led to people being wary of their sons (as well as our daughters) being raped by older men.

Another fundamental law of the universe is that everything is recycled. Everything. Whether it is in our environment or in our universe - all will be recycled sooner or later. This isn't very interesting to men who are focused on their profit & loss statements. But it will be fundamental to off planet colonies. In my opinion until recycling underpins our technology our whole civilization will be unsustainable.

These are merely a few examples of women can bring to the table that will benefit all of us. And until we give women and their minds all the recognition they deserve then our society will not function as it will need to to survive.

(to We know so little about ourselves in society - how men operate, how women operate - how they interact with each other. Unfortunately research on how society operates is relegated to women's studies, perhaps philosophy, perhaps sociology, but no self respecting man would be caught dead in the area unless he wanted to 'score' or is trans - either way, this is pretty much a man free zone.

This is unfortunate because we really know so little about ourselves and how we operate. And because we don't it means we have no way to fix the myriad of things that are going wrong with our society.

A lot of these things are male things, like men suiciding, men raping each other, male on male violence which is all about the hierarchy's imposed upon society, how to gain ranks on this hierarchy... much of this we know but it's code. We aren't allowed to talk about it, we can't appear vulnerable, we have to adhere to social norms, be attractive, be funny, be not too clever, but clever enough, be average sized, be rich... We should really study these things because much of this have devastating impacts on individuals.

The other thing that seems to happen with amazing regularity is using women to make men look better and this can be done by saying essentially no woman can ever achieve anything because all women are less than men. This I have seen so many times even by men who pretend to foster the accomplishments of women. I have seen this particularly when it comes to Admiral Hopper (who?).

I've seen this especially when we talk about computer history - they say things like Babbage-Turing instead of Lovelace-Hopper. This how women are edited out of history.

Turing may have done useful things with computers but he didn't invent the compiler, which gave us operating systems for computers; the internet, the web, the IoT, AI, smart phones and basically filled our homes and offices with computers and other devices.

In my opinion Hopper gave us the 21st century in much the same way Tesla gave us the 20th century.
But when you read about her, they say things like she invented COBOL (which is not very sexy - not like JAVA or python - which are all based on Hopper's original compiler). That she coined the term 'bug' - cute but hardly groundbreaking. Or if they mention she invented the compiler, it is often 'Hopper and her team'. But when it comes to other male inventors they never ever mention the team, while they no doubt had one.

One of the things you men do is use other people, especially women.

For instance, I know this guy who writes 'academic' material and he says he can't distinguish between my thoughts and his own and so it is unnecessary to credit me because he also talks to his wife. I told my husband that this person can't remember the difference between his thoughts and mine and my husband said that should be all the more reason to credit me. This guy did say that I was supposedly influenced by his ideas. I can remember all the ideas he has given me over the years on one hand.

However, he never comes to me with an idea to discuss - he only comes with boring stories of how people aren't delivering what they said they would to the point I said don't tell me anymore of this drivel. And so now he has nothing to tell me at all.

Given that we often speak for about an hour to 90mins a week I then go on to fill in the time with my ideas and what interests me. I know sometimes the stuff I say isn't profound but he definitely considers it more interesting than anything that he shares with me, because these ideas get repeated back to me as his own.

I once asked him for a reference and he gave me this sorry excuse of a reference that he even doubted my achievements and asked me to give him proof. I gave him proof. Nevertheless the reference was given grudgingly and written without interest or thought.

I asked him today if he ever acknowledged me in these endless books he never stops blathering about. He said perhaps he did once - a long time ago. So he has been passing off my ideas as his own and not crediting me. I feel completely disappeared.

I find it curious that this person calls himself an academic when he doesn't understand the concept of plagiarism.

Other things men do is mystify things that aren't mysterious. Men like to make things complicated so it will make them look more intelligent or clever.

I remember explaining to this 'academic' person how computer programming was simple yet he started telling me I was really doing something else.

Yet he can't even write computer code. In my opinion, men shouldn't write computer code because they make it too hard for them to do. Women are much better at doing system thinking, as women who run households are capable of managing many problems at once and dovetailing them in together. Men tend to think in terms of tasks rather than looking at the whole picture.

We see this problem with men doing housekeeping all the time. Men focus on one task at a time, women often see many tasks at once and optimize the completion of the tasks at once.

We see this in the packing problem which men tend to out perform women on because men tend to make this an abstract (to be fair he used the word abstract - but this was the first time I'd verbalized this concept and no doubt would have summarized it as abstract later) problem. I saw this on a show called Brain Games that men were able to pack a car trunk quicker and more efficiently than a woman - you see the woman considering what to put where but the man just puts objects in. I rather think the woman is actually trying to organize the objects going into the trunk instead, like diapers, want this to be easily accessible, yet away from food, clothes go at the bottom because won't be needing them until we've arrived... At least that's how I pack the car trunk. I am also solving many problems at once when I am packing the dishwasher, and while I am optimizing for exposing the dirtiest dishes to water flow, I am trying also to get as much as possible in and also remembering how I will unpack it knowing where dishes are stored and how far I can reach to return those dishes into cupboards easily and efficiently.

All of my code is bug free, unlike men's code. I have written systems that have never developed a bug, this is situation normal for me. But perhaps I am not normal. Men on average just can't do it.

But this is something that isn't studied. It is possible that a lot more software could be bug free if women wrote it instead of men. But men have taken over an area that was invented and once performed exclusively by women.

Of course we are all on bell curves - some people are better than others at somethings - regardless of gender.

So it's prime day and I received an email saying there's a special edition of 'a mighty girl' with pictures of microscopes, action figures of - I suppose it looks like Hermione Granger, who in my husband's opinion really didn't need Harry or the red haired one because she could do everything by herself - except, you know..., for plot. Still that would have meant that Hermione was pretty lonely - and that is a serious problem - loneliness.

Yes I know a lot of people don't have a problem being alone for periods of time but loneliness means never having someone to talk to ever, or probably more precisely, for perhaps months - or even years on end.

Perhaps you can press someone into service, pay a psychologist to talk to you, a fortune teller, a prostitute - if you're a man... In Japan they solved this problem with rent-a-friend services. But are we ready for rent-a-friends in the west?

Yes, obviously, because we have plenty of fortune tellers, psychologists and prostitutes, which are all there for other reasons obviously and their excuse for being there is because we have a problem admitting to ourselves, that we are lonely. I guess the real reason for the coyness is it feels somewhat shameful to admit to ourselves that we have needs and this makes us vulnerable.

And loneliness is a problem because we are extremely social. We're so social that I think we're really addicted to TV because there are people there that don't/can't hurt us. Sure we can't participate in conversations with them - tell them they are wrong, tell them how much we are fascinated by their perfectly scripted lives... but they can't ask us how we are doing, what our day was like, how we feel.

The embargo on admitting loneliness seems based on the desire to appear impervious to emotional pain or neediness. Is there anything more shameful than being vulnerable in someway? It opens us up to ridicule, it lowers our social ranking if we have needs that in someway aren't being met by our day to day life.

The most popular people get all the attention they need by being surrounded by adoring fans. The rich too. But I also think that is a fantasy because plenty of film and TV stars suicide at all points of their career even at what might appear to be it's pinnacle. My guess is that they were lonely for genuine contact with someone they considered an equal.

For most people that equal is their partner. If you don't have a partner, the world is a very lonely place. Because it is that partner that we are supposed to get our quality communication from, the person who is meant to be most kind and honest with us, most sensitive to our needs, who won't ridicule us for having toilet paper stuck on our shoe but will let us know kindly and discretely so as not to further embarrass us. The person who gives us all the affection we need, whether it is straight up affection, a hug, a kiss - or sex. And in my opinion it doesn't have to be sex - it can be a hug or a kiss.

I think a problem with our society is that sex is overrated. Do we need affection, yes. We are primates after all, our ancestor apes spend half their days grooming each other. They didn't spend half their days having sex though. Do people sometimes have sexual urges? Yes, but that's something they can deal with themselves. (I am not going to tell you what to do in the bedroom - I don't care so long as you are adults engaging in consensual acts where no one is being permanently harmed or hurt.)

With all the taboos on sex, it has become the only valid way men can receive affection - it leads to bragging rights as to how much males are 'getting' and results in all manner of evil - whether it is unwanted pregnancies or rape and even death. Males can't admit to needing to touch or being touched - so parents I recommend you get your kids pets they can pet as much as they like.

The other side of the taboo is women have to play this game of being virginal and "pure" yet sexy. This is women go nuts trying to pretend they are young because young girls are supposed to be virginal and "pure" and sexy because they are at their most fertile... so women become infantile by removing their body hair, get plastic surgery, and do all kinds of crazy things in the name of 'beauty' aka making themselves small, in need of protection. in other words, generic, that their only assets are their virginity (they didn't 'put out') their DNA (their appearance) and the intelligence to spend time playing this game of subterfuge. Beyond that women are supposed to tease men into chasing them and refuse to 'put out' to make the other half of this game of making sex taboo. A number of serial murderers have admitted to killing women because they didn't consider the women pure/perfect enough)

Well I digressed some and then some more. My point about mighty girl - is how much extra does it cost your parents so their daughter can be mighty? The image above is a screen capture of a wonder woman and batman cup - both on Amazon today and you'll note that wonder woman will cost over $7 more than being batman (that's over 50% more). I asked on the listing why this was so and I was told that their daughter loved it. I'd love to have one too but I can't justify paying $7 more for a silly cup. The problem is, it can be very expensive to be a woman.

I do have issues with girls dressing up as boys to be mighty though. Hollywood's idea of a female friendly movie is substituting the male lead with a female lead, so wonder woman is really just a guy with more flesh showing - perhaps? The reality of female friendly are movies like Hot pursuit, Wild, Bad Moms, the Heat, and TV like Sharp objects and Little Big Lies (this show genuinely terrifies me)...

People have this misconception that Jane Austen wrote romances. Especially Pride and Prejudice - which was written at a time when novels were just a step removed from the devils work and young ladies were encouraged to read sermons rather than the Gothic horrors, such as The Mysteries of Udolpho, which Austen references in Northhanger Abbey, that had been general fair available for young women to read instead.

I think people underestimate Pride and Prejudice as a guide to seeking employment and economics for a particular class of women society. The choice was, a) be rich and independently wealthy, such as Emma, Lady Russell, Lady Catherine de Bourgh and her daughter, b) be a governess, and c) marriage.

And thus it's considered to be a romance.

Austen states pretty clearly that women have to enter marriage with their eyes wide open (Charlotte Lucas and that love is for men). While keeping your eyes open when you have no idea what a man is like in private because you are only allowed to meet him in public (to ensure your virginity), you have little experience of the world (because you are very young) and figuring out how much money he has, has got to sound mercenary but the reality is many women died in child birth at the time. So if marrying might mean your death in delivering an heir, you might as well make it as comfortable as possible by being rich.

And this seems to have been so easily forgotten - it wasn't until very recently that women stopped dying in child birth but then again the numbers are increasing again, at least in the US.

Austen wrote about the class system and how easily the rich manipulate those with less money for their own amusement. Think of Emma and how easily she manipulates Harriet Smith and in the end (the book not the movies) Emma will no longer associate with Harriet who goes on to marry the farmer. In movies they always reunite Emma and Harriet, and imply they remain life long friends.

Probably the weirdest thing people have told me is that Bridget Jones is a modern Pride and Prejudice - I always cringe when hearing this because the Bridget Jones is nothing like Elizabeth Bennett. But the only reason why people say this is that in the 1995 BBC version was made with the same actor playing Darcy as they used in Bridget Jones. While Darcy is important to the story, Austen pretty much uses him as a potentially interchangeable protagonist - we never really get inside Darcy's mind until he writes his letter to Lizzy. Even the author of Bridget Jones said she has no pretensions of crafting a modern Elizabeth Bennett.

Pride and Prejudice is about Elizabeth and her mental life. I am pretty much convinced Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice in response to Mary Wollstonecraft's Maria, where Wollstonecraft complains about the portrayal of women in literature.

I realized I didn't provide references for the statistics I quoted last time but for the record I have gathered these statistics several times on this blog so dig a little an you'll find the figures and links to the sources. I usually gather these figures from the FBI where they detail online many crime statistics, plus I use incarceration figures as well. These numbers have changed over the years slightly and new figures are posted every year.

But I was thinking about Gary Southern again, yes I know, I love to say who? after mentioning this guys name but in my opinion, any man who gets 1 month jail time for poisoning a state's drinking water deserves infamy, and I mean the Casey Anthony or Monica Lewinsky levels of infamy, and neither of these women did anything as bad as what Gary Southern did. And I'd like to add Snyder to my list of infamous men, that'd be Rick (or dick as I'd like to refer to him) the governor who poisoned all those kids in Flint Michigan.

Why isn't he infamous, when what he did was much much worse than Lewinsky?

I blame the media. they never shut up about the women but slide on by when it comes to the shit these men do. This is why we get shitty men like Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS, and the POS in the white house, the guy who gloats about grabbing "pussy".

These men are shameful, indeed, I'm deeply embarrassed that these men are supposed to represent me in anyway. but they don't represent me. We've forgotten what politics is for. It is nothing but entertainment for the small minded who live in a world of 'people' magazine and stupid television.

Turn off your TV, stop reading the news - indeed - putting news behind a paywall is probably the best thing that's happened to the news; the mainstream media love Trump because he sells them advertising.

But the way, these guys behave like they think they're entitled to do the things they do and when they get caught, throw a tantrum and then go about their business, because we don't put them on a list of infamous shame as women are and the media are to blame for this.

There is no end to the evil men do and then blame others for.

Yes, I know, not all men.

However, think about 'she was asking for it' and you know exactly what i mean - he's not to blame - she was 'asking' to be raped... then there are the associated questions: what was she wearing, how drunk was she... Society has been trained to believe it really isn't the man's fault she was raped.

Indeed women take the responsibility for everything, because most women are conditioned to apologize constantly even for things they did not do.

But the reality is it was definitely the man's fault.

Why do we constantly let men off the hook?

Another example is: men are constantly tearing up the environment for the sake of profit, they are digging up the world, we buy their stuff, throw it away and then other men bury it. Of course these men will blame consumers, they will blame women for wanting to marry rich men, they will blame... someone else.

Politics taking a leaf out of history learned this lesson well - men in the middle ages blamed and burned women at the stake, Hitler and the Nazis blamed the Jews, Slavs, Roma, homosexuals, the old.... these days men blame Hispanics, Muslims, immigrants...

Feminism is ruining ... everything, we're told by men, because we know men aren't to blame for anything - men never started a war - women start all the wars too. and then they will turn around and say things like - men are murdered more often than women - yes men are the primary victim of murder - but they are murdered by other men - a fact they neglect to mention constantly. Men are also the victim of more violence - but not at the hands of women, as they like to point out how violent women are - nevertheless, men are the victim of more violence but that violence is at the hands of other men - and when men are raped, they like to say men are raped by women - and possibly there are women who rape men - but the statistics demonstrate that men rape men more often.

Men have a man problem.

I'd like to tell men, especially rich, white, older men to stop blaming others for the shit they do. And when they are finally caught, these men will turn around and act like they didn't know what they were doing was wrong.

At the risk of sounding sexist, I'd like to tell these men to grow a pair and take responsibility for your actions.

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.