I wish people would take the time to try and understand other people and they’re actions. I think there would be a lot less stigma surrounding self-harm, EDs, depression, bipolar I & II, and schizophrenia. It breaks me heart when I hear people, who clearly have no idea what they’re talking about, passing judgment on those who are suffering.
What I can say from my exprience is:
I did not cut for attention, I cut because it made me feel alive.
I did not lie in bed 16 hours a day because I was lazy, I lay there because literally every part of my body felt like 1000 lbs.
I did not skip class because I was a slacker, I skipped class because I mentally couldn’t handle leaving my room.
I did not drink too much because I was a party animal, I drank too much because it was an easy way to forget about my problems.
I did not do drugs because I was into the scene, I did drugs because it was the only time I felt happy (even if it was a manufactured feeling).
I didn’t not eat some days because I thought I was fat, I wouldn’t eat because I felt like I didn’t deserve it.
Some depression statistics…
Depressive disorders affect approximately 18.8 million American adults or about 9.5% of the U.S. population age 18 and older in a given year. This includes major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, and bipolar disorder. 
Everyone, will at some time in their life be affected by depression — their own or someone else’s, according to Australian Government statistics. (Depression statistics in Australia are comparable to those of the US and UK.) 
54% of people believe depression is a personal weakness. 
Depression will be the second largest killer after heart disease by 2020 — and studies show depression is a contributory factor to fatal coronary disease. 
41% of depressed women are too embarrassed to seek help. 
To you 54%: you are the reason people are to embarrassed to seek help for their illness. It makes me so fucking angry just thinking about you lot. Wise up, take your head out of your ass, READ some fucking research.
The Left Right Paradigm is Over: Its You vs. Corporations
By Barry Ritholtz
Every generation or so, a major secular shift takes place that shakes up the existing paradigm. It happens in industry, finance, literature, sports, manufacturing, technology, entertainment, travel, communication, etc.
I would like to discuss the paradigm shift that is occurring in politics.
For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets.
The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two “interest groups” – I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase – have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.
This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate – and the Humans are losing.
• Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations;
• The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying;
• Corporate ability to extend copyright far beyond what original protections amounts to a taking of public works for private corporate usage;
• PAC and campaign finance by Corporations has supplanted individual donations to elections;
• The individuals’ right to seek redress in court has been under attack for decades, limiting their options.
• DRM and content protection undercuts the individual’s ability to use purchased content as they see fit;
• Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will;
• The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations have Free Speech rights equivalent to people; (So much for original intent!)
None of these are Democrat/Republican conflicts, but rather, are corporate vs. individual issues.
For those of you who are stuck in the old Left/Right debate, you are missing the bigger picture. Consider this about the Bailouts: It was a right-winger who bailed out all of the big banks, Fannie Mae, and AIG in the first place; then his left winger successor continued to pour more money into the fire pit.
What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever.
How about government spending? The past two presidents are regarded as representative of the Left Right paradigm – yet they each spent excessively, sponsored unfunded tax cuts, plowed money into military adventures and ran enormous deficits. Does Left Right really make a difference when it comes to deficits and fiscal responsibility? (Apparently not).
What does it mean when we can no longer distinguish between the actions of the left and the right? If that dynamic no longer accurately distinguishes what occurs, why are so many of our policy debates framed in Left/Right terms?
In many ways, American society is increasingly less married to this dynamic: Party Affiliation continues to fall, approval of Congress is at record lows, and voter participation hovers at very low rates.
There is some pushback already taking place against the concentration of corporate power: Mainstream corporate media has been increasingly replaced with user created content – YouTube and Blogs are increasingly important to news consumers (especially younger users). Independent voters are an increasingly larger share of the US electorate. And I suspect that much of the pushback against the Elizabeth Warren’s concept of a Financial Consumer Protection Agency plays directly into this Corporate vs. Individual fight.
But the battle lines between the two groups have barely been drawn. I expect this fight will define American politics over the next decade.
Keynes vs Hayek? Friedman vs Krugman? Those are the wrong intellectual debates. Its you vs. Tony Hayward, BP CEO, You vs. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO. And you are losing …
This short commentary was conceived not to be an exhaustive research, but rather, to stimulate debate. There are many more examples and discussions we can have about this, and I hope readers do so in comments.
But my bottom line is this: If you see the world in terms of Left & Right, you really aren’t seeing the world at all …
‘What A Slut’ - What that four-letter word really means and why you shouldn’t use it
Mercedes Mueller — The Fulcrum (University of Ottawa)
OTTAWA (CUP) — “And then we went back to my place and fucked,” the girl ahead of me in line at the coffee shop triumphantly declared, catching her friend up on the weekend’s events.
“I can’t believe you did that,” responded the second girl, incredulously. “You’re such a slut!” Both girls erupted into laughter as they grabbed their coffees and walked away.
What’s wrong with this conversation? For starters, the fact that most of you silently thought “nothing” in response to that question.
The word “slut” is everywhere — be it on TV, scribbled across a bathroom stall or in our everyday conversations. Even the Canadian Oxford Dictionary has an entry for slut, yet the word has inconspicuously taken on a meaning greater than that which can be defined by a dictionary.
First used in the 14th century to refer to “a dirty, untidy or slovenly woman,” the word slut has always been applied to women of low character, specifically those who exhibit questionable sexual behaviour — behaviour that doesn’t conform to society’s patriarchal expectations of a woman’s sexual conduct.
But within our contemporary culture, where it’s increasingly acceptable for a woman’s sexual identity to exist outside of a marriage, what constitutes “questionable sexual behaviour” is unclear. Nonetheless, words like “slut” and “whore” are hurled at women, usually in an attempt to exert control over their actions.
You’re a woman and you’re open about your sexuality? Slut. You’re a woman who enjoys having sex — be it within the confines of a monogamous relationship or as a career choice? Whore. You’re a woman who has never had sex before, but just so happens to wear shirts that say you do, indeed, have breasts? Skank.
When we consider the endless scenarios that render a woman a slut these days, it becomes clear that this word is used solely to shame a woman for expressing herself sexually. There’s a notion that this act of slut-shaming — making a woman feel ashamed for being sexual or having one or more sexual partners — is a tool that can be used to compel a woman to alter her behaviour for the better.
Call a woman a slut and perhaps she’ll feel ashamed enough to change her behaviour — behaviour that society believes leaves her vulnerable to things like unplanned pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and sexual assault. It’s for her protection, right?
Far from leaving her better off, slut-shaming can irreparably damage a woman’s self-perception. Being called a slut for exhibiting perfectly normal sexual behaviour can cause a woman to associate herself with the negative connotations intrinsic to that word: Dirty, easy and worthless. Maybe she’ll indulge these unfounded labels and take on multiple partners, or maybe she’ll shut herself down to all forms of sexual activity out of shame. She may become a target for others to take advantage of, feeling as though her right to consent is taken away by her reputation. Either way, it diminishes a woman’s ability to express her sexuality — and that’s not healthy.
Slut-shaming has been used to make examples out of “bad” girls to their peers, sometimes ending with severe consequences. In 2009, a 13-year-old girl from in U.S. sexted a photo of her breasts to a boy she liked, which was intercepted and circulated around her school and a nearby high school. The girl was forced to endure endless taunting by her peers, routinely being called a “slut” and a “whore.”
When school officials were informed of these events, their response wasn’t to talk to the girl about what had happened, or to discipline the offending classmates. They suspended her from school for a week, an action that sends the message to students that calling someone a slut for exhibiting “slutty behaviour” is okay — that, perhaps, slutty girls deserve to be punished by their peers.
She hung herself less than a week after the suspension.
Beyond damaging someone’s reputation and self-esteem on an individual level, slut-shaming shapes societal discourse on things like rape, abuse and sexual harassment. There is an inconspicuous but real conception in society and our legal systems that rape is more understandable under certain circumstances — circumstances that revolve around the identity of the victim.
In 2007, a British man charged with the rape of a 10-year-old girl was given concurrent two-year and 18-month jail sentences, as opposed to life in prison. The judge felt he was faced with “a moral dilemma” in this “exceptional case” because the victim regularly wore make-up, strappy tops and jeans, making her appear at least 16 years old — as though somehow her provocative clothing trumped her right to consent — assuming a child is even capable of consent.
Cases like the above aren’t isolated anomalies in our legal systems. Rape cases are thrown out on the basis of the victim’s appearance — how they dress, act and speak — while instances of sexual harassment in the workplace are overlooked because of the victim’s sexual history. Women are constantly written off by their peers as worthless, irrelevant and less capable at the simple utterance of that four-letter word.
The word slut has become a catch-all phrase used to defame a woman — one that has lost its meaning in society, while simultaneously carrying dark implications with its use.
Next time you want to call a woman a slut, think about what you actually mean to say. Does the fact that she’s open about her sexuality make her a slut, or is she just a liberal woman? Is the woman that fucked your boyfriend really a whore, or is your boyfriend simply a cheating asshole? Is that classmate wearing the low-cut top skanky, or is she just gutsy enough to wear something you could never pull off? It isn’t until we stop being so loose with our word choice that the problems associated with this powerful vocabulary will begin to dissipate.