What is the Deal with Men? *Graphic

Below is a link to a TedTalk by Katz, PhD, speaking about men violence, child abuse, domestic abuse, and other types of male-oriented violence.

"Women who talk about these issues get called...feminazi," says Katz. He has a point.

He mentions this taboo subject---why is it males that do 90% or more of the following:
> child sexual abuse
> beating of girlfriends/wives
> rape (or females, children, males)
> murder (including serial killing, stalker killing, etc...)

Why? Is it testosterone? Is it the "special son" syndrome where parents spoil their sons and not their daughters, making their sons feel entitled? Is it sex-obsessed media? Is it the left-over of third-world hatred of women and their sexual organs?

I never really wanted to mention the fact that all violence can be generalized by one word, and that word is not "preventable", "tragic", or "rare"; it is "man."

***That being said, I think it's funny that you are probably thinking I hate men. I sleep with men, too many men. I will now disclose how many boyfriends I have had: 20. That does not include non-sexual partners that I dated. These are just guys that I slept with. Sometimes they broke it off with me, other times, I ran off. So, knowing that, do I really hate men? Especially considering that I am courting two other males at the present moment? Especially considering that I am linking to a TedTalk male speaker? I love men. I just hate this brainwashing male-violence approving mentality that is prevalent globally. It is soooo third-world.

I think to a certain extent, I am brainwashed to accept male hatred/fear/abuse. But all this brainwashing just makes me more radicalized, more polarized from the brainwashed mentality. Valerie Solanis' SCUM manifesto is tucked away safely in my bedroom. My womb is not open for impregnation, though my legs are often spread. Yes, I hide behind cyberwalls. I do this for my own safety. I exert my right to free speech and to attempt to uphold the constitution barring discrimination based against sex, creed, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation. I HAVE to protect my identity because the real word for "trolls" is "abusers".

Deepest thanks to men who are courageous and ballsy and don't beat up women or rape little kids.  Deepest thanks to the men who I have slept with and never hurt me (that excludes the guy who put a gun to my head and the guy who swore he was putting on a condom like I asked and then shoved it in bare). Deepest thanks to the women who are not totally 100% brainwashed. And fuck you women who hate other women.

Here is the link: GO TEDTALKS!!!
http://www.upworthy.com/a-ted-talk-that-might-turn-every-man-who-watches-it-into-a-feminist-its-pretty-fantastic-7?g=4

Comment on the book "Appetite"

The book, "Appetites: Why Women Want," by Carolyn Knapp is an articulate, well-informed, deep analysis of why women starve themselves. Written in lucid prose, Knapp explains her own period of anorexia and expands on her views about why women put themselves through this. Genetics, environment, and personality all play crucial roles in the formation of anorexia nervosa, bulimia, and binge eating disorder, she writes.

Knapp discusses societal factors that plague women, pushing them from overachieving to under-eating and self-destruction. She discusses the role of feminism within the sphere of eating disorders, saying that women are now allowed in places and jobs they'd never obtained before, but with a catch: don't take up any space and don't complain.

I found this book to be interesting, well-written, deep, and a critical portrait of a society where women are still breaking through gender barriers, the most severe being in the way they present themselves in terms of appearance. It made me understand why anorexics push themselves to such dangerous levels of societal conformity.

One thing that stuck out to me was the author's admiration of a fat woman in her twenties who had stopped abusing herself via dieting and binge/purge cycles. She had decided she'd just be fat and accept that fact. The author relates this woman's plight to a friend of hers, who has a wildly different outlook: 'You admire her, I just see diabetes, heart problems, and hypertension.'

The funny thing is, why do we not look at anorexics and bulimics the same way? If you see diabetes and hypertension whenever you see a fat person, why don't you think, "irregular heartbeat, brittle bone disease, and dangerously low blood pressure" when you see an anorexic? Why the admiration for them?

Just a thought.

The F Word (feminism)

We have it all, we can work, vote, drive, marry, not marry, eat, not eat, we're free. We came a long way, kitten, you hung in there, now we're free. Liberated.

Yet something isn't right. Just ask Ms. Watson, an atheist blogger who bitched about being hit on in an elevator by a strange man after her feminist lecture. Richard Dawkins, an atheist I used to respect, than jumped in and told Watson she should be on her hands and knees thanking men in America for not slicing off her clitoris like they do in other countries....his point? She should just take it. Forever and ever. Take sexual come-ons, take insults, take "compliments" aimed at her sexuality, just take it! Take it!! He told her to stop moaning and take it---others have it much worse.
Well, being a female who has been raped multiple times, had my breasts physically punched by a guy who claimed it was all in the name of S&M, I guess that puts me in the position to judge. Or so says Dawkins, who spends his energy negating the painful feelings of objectified women. My final judgement is this: if it bothered her it bothered her so why is Richard Dawkins all hot and bothered around the collar? I'm sure he justified it all with "it's natural to want to have intercourse, therefore, men get to be as pushy as they want. It's for the sake of perpetuating the human species!"

Well, gee, that's true...but maybe Ms.Watson didn't want to conceive a child with a stranger in an elevator. Perhaps Dawkins thinks that Ms. Watson should want to conceive a child with a stranger in an elevator because it's her "function" as a human female, especially someone of her socio-economic class (tangent note: science has always run scary close to preaching eugenics, or that Nazi inspired genetic purity bull, so maybe a scientist isn't the best advocate for reproductive rights). Maybe Dawkins thinks Ms. Watson is hot and should get over being objectified because if it were him he'd be putting out to men left and right. Or maybe he's just a pompous, overrated, over-published, sexist jerk who only made it up through academia due to his social status, social connections, and the polished ego only a rich, white male could achieve. Or maybe he's right! Who knows, the world is nuts, anything can happen, maybe the guy is right to use clitoral mutilation to put Ms. Watson back into her place---back in the box, Ms. Watson! Stop trying to gain respect for women all over the globe!