...I gave birth in 1980 to a daughter, who, in a very short period of time, gave her parents pause when we realized she was probably smarter than we were. I was a stay-at-home mom and at that time society was on the cusp of making those of us at home feel as though we should be "finding ourselves" outside the home. More >>

When I was growing up, to earn my weekly allowance, my dad used to have me write an essay. One week, he assigned me to write about what I wanted to be when I grew up. More >>

I just finished your book, Surviving A Shark Attack (On Land). It is so refreshing to hear someone speak without the usual psycho babble and making excuses for dysfunctional acting people... More >>

I'm getting more and more scared for our country and our society.  The attitudes and behaviors which were once marginalized are now becoming mainstream, tearing apart the fabric of families and the well-being of individuals. You may remember my comments about Jennifer Aniston's movie "The Switch," which focused on parenthood via donor insemination.  Well, she had a bit of a tussle with Bill O'Reilly, who said in August that Aniston's comments on women's ability to become mothers without men were "destructive to our society." More >>

I have railed since day one when clinicians started calling bad choices and bad habits "diseases."The good news about calling alcohol and drug abuses "diseases" is that clinicians and others can reap financial rewards by charging insurance for their "medical" intervention.The bad news about calling substance abuse a "disease" is that the individual is robbed of his real ability to exercise choice and self-control , and such labeling puts the onus on society to give that individual a "pass" on taking responsibility for the consequences of the addiction.There is considerable proof that addiction is a choice:' the book "Addiction: A Disorder of Choice," by Gene M. Heyman, Harvard University Press, demonstrates many of them.'For example:' in 1970, it was determined that between 10% and 25% of enlisted Army men were addicted to high-grade Vietnamese heroin and opium.' When they were told they couldn't come home without being drug-free, the vast majority stopped using narcotics as the word of the new directive spread.' The vast minority who were detained for detoxification programs were clean when given a second chance.' Only 12% of soldiers who were dependent on opiate narcotics in Vietnam became re-addicted at some point in the next three years.The point is that calling alcohol or drug abuse a "disease" takes away from the individual the respect for his or her ability to choose.' Every behavior we have is somehow tied to genetics and the brain.' That doesn't make it a disease unless the individual has no choice .' Alzheimer 's disease gives you no choice.' Multiple sclerosis gives you no choice.' Alcohol abuse is a choice.Addicts are drawn to drug abuse to salve depression, anxiety, boredom, and self-loathing.' At the start of their addiction, they feel great, short-term, and they start giving up the joy in work, hobbies, family and friends.' After a while, they need the drug to salve psychic pain (which is now increasing with the collapse of other factors in their lives), suppress withdrawal symptoms, and eliminate the craving.' At some point, when these benefits come to be outweighed by the adverse fallout the balance shifts, and the addict chooses recovery.The concept of disease includes the obliteration of choice-making ability .' Fortunately, addicts can make a choice, and congratulations are in order to those who do! More >>

Earlier this month, I took a call that I thought was a perfect example of how "moral nearsightedness" is overcoming American society.This twenty-something young woman was pregnant out-of-wedlock, "shacking up" with her alleged fiance (they are living with his father), and the fiance doesn't have enough income to support a wife and child.But that's not why she called!! In fact, when I pointed out the irresponsibility and immaturity of conceiving out of wedlock with a guy incapable of supporting a family, I got back: "Well, that's not my question!" (And, by the way, she didn't want to have a wedding until after the baby was born and she got her figure back in order to wear a white gown).Her question actually related to her mother.' Apparently, her mommy came to visit and "got it on" with the fiance's dad.... all night .' There were other children (of other family members) in the home when this was happening.That's as far as she got when I said: "It's genetic." She responded with: "What?" I repeated and expanded: "It's genetic...having no moral foundation for decisions.' Like mother, like daughter." Now that may sound harsh to you, but truth often is, and there was nothing I could do to change anything about this situation.' She was already "shacking up" and pregnant; her mother already had humped the maybe future father-in-law.' Her question was going to be about confronting her mom about this outrageous behavior.' I couldn't bear to hear her even go there, considering she was the pot and the kettle all by herself.It's a shame both of our eyes point only outwards.' It would be a far, far better thing if one of them turned inwards. More >>

During my college years in the Sixties, "empowerment" and "consciousness-raising" were the main focus of existence, even though these concepts were largely used to insist that you were a victim of something or someone just for being female.Well, fast forward to now, and one young, married woman in her twenties has decided that giving birth live on the Internet is empowering to women!' The use of that term in this circumstance cracks me up.' I remember, during my loooong labor, my husband saying that he was going to leave to get a cup of coffee.' I threatened him with "if you leave...never come back!!"' I guess that threat was "empowerment," but giving birth in public or private is one of our least powerful times.' We are completely at the mercy of a baby who is usually saying "Hell, no, I won't go."Nonetheless, this woman has decided that taking something personal and making it public is empowering and educational and spreading joy.' Oh, puleeze!' In our sadly growing exhibitionist, voyeuristic, reality show mentality of a society, this is how people become "important," known, and "famous."The point of "personal" is that something is perfected by its modesty, and sharing is not an issue of public promotion, but an opportunity for a few people to embrace a meaningful moment of experience.' Experiences and moments that are universal (like child-bearing) are not educational.' The childbirth is going to be posted on a mom website, which means that they've all been there and done that.Her husband is marginalized.' She admits that he was "hesitant" at first, but I'm sure he ultimately had no say.' There aren't too many decent men who want to share the birth of their first child with a camera crew and a blog audience - that makes Daddy less special and less involved.It's all just sad to me.' And what happens after the event, when the thrill, the attention and adrenaline of being in the spotlight goes away?' What is she going to do with this kid to keep the flow going?' Think Jon and Kate.' Think "sad" for the children who become the means of their parents' moment in the light, in ways other than simply enjoying their first smiles and first steps. More >>

I have watched film adaptations of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice in all its incarnations many, many times, and I recently watched the 2005 film version again. I love the film...no matter what criticisms may be about a portrayal or a performance. I clearly have a profound attraction to this work.First and foremost, I love the utter regard the men had for women, which is evident from how they addressed them: "Miss..." (and their first names if they were single) or "Mrs...." (and their last names if they were married). Men bowed upon entering and leaving a woman's presence, and women curtsied, even under unpleasant conditions. Flirting was ever-so-subtle: a look, a light "accidental" touch of a hand. A man romantically yearned for and tried to earn the affections of a woman. The sweetness of the regard for women in this era (particularly in upper and middle classes) was something to be admired, and something we now miss. There was a clear distinction between a "good" woman and an easy, loose woman or whore.That distinction is gone today. Now, women put down good money for music that represents them as whores without pay. So many young men are casual about women and sex in general, and sex is a casual expectation almost always fulfilled.Young women scoff at dignity and modesty as just stupid, prudish, sexist notions. They "shack up" with some dude without a marital commitment, yet expect the love and respect, fidelity and loyalty to exist without the spoken vows, only to be disappointed, hurt, and generally confused.There was a recent film comedy, called "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past," in which Matthew McConaughey (in a twist on Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" ) got to go back into his life to see all his old girlfriends. There was one scene in the television ad for the movie which showed a seemingly endless dining table filled with hundreds of girls. Obviously, this was meant to show how shallow and manipulative he had been. To me, it just showed how many stupid girls there were (and are), "putting out" in a situation where there was clearly no respect, regard, or intent.Men used to have to ask a woman's dad for permission to "court" her, even when the woman was an adult! Now, all he has to do is show her a bedroom, back seat of a car, or a motel room, and the date is sealed. When men had to explain and express their intentions, they had to take the whole activity of dating much more seriously, as there were personal and social consequences to misleading a young lady. That reputation would annihilate any chances he might have had of marrying a good woman. He'd have to move states or provinces away. Now? That kind of rakish reputation makes girls/women want to line up to get some from an infamous entity.The women's revolution did not raise any consciousness worth elevating. It mostly diminished a woman's sense of herself as special, minimized her value in the minds of men, put sex on the level of animals, created a nanny/baby-sitter/institutionalized day care financial boom (as women gave up the blessing of nurturing their own children), increased the use of abortion as a birth-control technique when an accidental pregnancy occurred with a guy who did not want fatherhood, created perpetually unhappy, angry, nasty wives, and made it very difficult for "nice girls" to be respected and cherished.The last scene in Pride and Prejudice between the two now-married lovers has them discussing what she wants to be called by him when he is not using her given name. He suggests one name, and she rejects it sweetly, because it is what her father calls her. She then asks him what he will call her when he is angry. He, not being able to envision that situation, talks to her about always letting her know how lovingly important his happiness in wrapped up in her...forever...and he kisses her gently about her face as he says "Mrs. Darcy" over and over again. He gave her his heart, his life, his vows, and his name. And, in that era, giving a woman your name was the ultimate public and private statement of his total commitment to her, which makes that scene so moving to most of us, and infuriating to feminists who see that scene only as ripping away the woman's identity.I always cry at the end of the movie.I cry also for what women have given up in exchange for wanting to have it all and not be subordinate to a man. I don't know...I kinda think being on a pedestal is not subordinate. But what do I know? I'm only a recovered feminist. More >>

I'm still laughing...I read an article last week in one of the online news reporting sites about a new book on economics, called Superfreakonomics .' In the book, the authors discuss the issue of prostitution in today's economic climate.' As it turns out, prostitution was a profitable enterprise (focusing on mainstream sex acts) until the sexual liberation movement in the 1960s changed "the business of intimacy, and a generation of 'free love' altered the marketplace forever." The "modesty traditionally displayed by women in search of Mr. Right evolved to a bold pursuit of Mr. Right Now." The 1960s genesis of casual sex became prostitution's direct rival.So, prices for sex acts plummeted.' Hookers had competition from the average woman who would have sex for free (without even getting a dinner out of it). Being entrepreneurial, hookers then began to provide more unconventional sex -' the kind of things men can't get from their girlfriends - and the price for those often depraved acts hauled the fees way back up.As one call girl said: "Thank God prostitution is illegal, 'cause if it weren't, I wouldn't be making $500 an hour; I'd probably be back doing what I was doing, which was working as a computer technician for a Fortune 500 company." Of course, if you're the prostitute for a state governor, you'll probably get lots of media offers!The call girl entrepreneur who was interviewed was asked whether or not she would suggest this "career" for her daughter.' She obfuscated like crazy, saying she hoped it would be only one of many, many options, and then the article ended with the revelation that she's now quitting prostitution to go to school to study economics.' I guess morality finally caught up to her.This is why I use the term "unpaid whore" for women who shack up with guys, rather than dignify themselves and sexual intimacy with a marital commitment.' I tell them that at the very least, they ought to be paid for sex, since it ultimately means nothing profoundly important to him past the orgasm.' Now I can mention that they are taking food out of the mouths of prostitutes and their families!!Women cannot run away from their true nature, and our true nature (apart from any psychological problems) is to nurture and nest.' We can act like wild women and say it's our right and freedom, but I take the calls every day from disillusioned, hurt women who did , in fact, expect love and loyalty from the men they had sex with.So, ladies, have pity on the call girls and prostitutes.' Give them back their turf, and re-elevate womanhood so that men again have a mountain to climb and earn, and therefore value . More >>

A female professor from Oxford University in England, in an article published in the Journal of Population Economics, has decided that American and British men (who don't mind lending a hand when it comes to housework), make the best husbands, while Australian men are the worst.' She's also "decided" that Norway, Sweden, and Northern Ireland, where men "lend a hand in housework," are egalitarian countries which produce better husbands.I say: unbelievable feminista hogwash!! The professor's definition of a good husband is ridiculous.' Men who are sexually faithful, who work hard to provide for and protect their families, who take care of the plumbing and the lawn are not good husbands, because they don't do what used to be called "women's work."' This is just one more salvo in the war against masculinity, in which men are completely emasculated because they're told that they're neither good men nor good husbands unless they fold the laundry.When women call me complaining about such things (usually women who are at home), I ask them if they drive their husband's route in traffic every day, or if they deal with difficult bosses or co-workers, or if they aren't able to take breaks whenever they choose or take care of all the car and house repair issues.' They say "no," but expect him to do housework in addition to all his other responsibilities.In those situations where both husband and wife have full-time jobs, and there's a "war" about who's going to take care of household chores, I say they should budget and pay for part-time housecleaning help, or one of them ought to reassess their life and decide if having no one at home to make a nest is worth the money they both make.There are biological and psychological imperatives in females for nesting/child care, and in males for conquering/protecting.' When these are turned inside out, there is usually (but not always) a reaction in the female to feel less respectful and sexual toward her mate.' Women don't stare at skinny guys with spectacles when they walk by, but they do stare at Bowflex-toned commercial male actors with huge pecs and biceps.' Why?' It's the animal attraction of a male who, potentially, is sexually healthy enough to produce offspring and then provide and protect.Women who want emasculated men generally have huge hostility issues with masculinity (which they got from their mothers or the feminist teachers of their women's studies courses), and want to be able to control the man (never as much as their mother could) or are just too scared of their normal natural dependency on a real man.A better study would be to find out what household situations make MEN happiest, because those are the ones which, overall, are going to attract the men who make the best husbands.' Happy husbands spend more time with their families, and would swim through shark-infested waters for them.' This particular study?'' Just another piece of feminist propaganda flotsam. More >>