I breast-fed my son, and promote breast-feeding for adult mothers, for both psychological and physiological reasons - it's a great and wonderful thing for mother and child.' I do believe in being discreet, however, which gets some breast-feeding moms hot under the collar.' I guess they forget that breasts are "sexual" parts to men, and generally are considered appendages that should be private.'So what's the latest toy on the market for little girls (coming out in time for the holidays)?' A doll that comes with a special halter top for a little girl (the doll's "mother") to wear as she pretends to breast feed her "baby."' The halter top has daisies that cover a little girl's nipples, and come undone just as easily as the flaps of a real nursing bra do.'Toys need to be age-appropriate, and toys which may speed up maternal urges at a time when children are not that mature, are just not appropriate at all. More >>

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 >>

Antidepressant drug use in the United States doubled between 1998 and 2005, according to a report in The Archives of General Psychiatry.' But I'm telling you that there is no way in the world that the incidence of profound depression doubled in that same period.' No way.About 13 million people (or 6% of the population) were prescribed an antidepressant in 1996.' By 2006, that number rose to more than 27 million people.' Again, there's no way that the incidence of profound depression increased that much.'Try this number on for size:' more than 164 million prescriptions were written in 2008, totaling almost $10 BILLION in US sales.' Unlike the incidence of profound depression, I believe that the incidence of making money off prescriptions for depression did indeed double between 1996 and 2005.As a licensed psychotherapist, I can tell you with great candor that the psychological and pharmaceutical communities have a huge investment in income - plain and simple.' It's been amazing to me (and I have commented on this publicly for thirty years) how there are trends in diagnoses and grandiose treatments.' For a while, everyone was agoraphobic; then every adult claimed to have some level of ADD; then there was a trend toward multiple personality disorder.' Now, being bi-polar is the illness of choice, or so it seems.I'm going to state the obvious: yes , there are people clinically depressed to such a severe level that medicine might be the difference between life and suicide.' I have recommended interim treatment for people who seem to be suffering profoundly.However, this "doubling" issue is occurring for a number of reasons:' 1) trends in the psych industry; 2) money-making efforts by pharmaceutical companies (notice all the TV commercials); 3) the growing weakness of the American public to deal with frustrations and setbacks; 4) the social acceptance of copping to a mental illness to explain various personality/behavioral issues; 5) insurance companies not paying for psychotherapy (requiring high out-of-pocket expenses for treatment).' The bottom line?' Numerous studies show that therapy is as effective (if not more effective) than drug use alone.I've become more and more concerned about people trying to "cure" what is normal.' I've said this on my program many times:' being sad and deflated over job or love losses is normal ; having childhood disruptions in one's life is normal ; hanging on to them as an identity, attempt at attention, and as a cop-out for responsibilities is not accepting (and not enduring) what is normal .'A sixteen year old male called my radio program the other day.' He was sad that "the love of his life" dumped him, and he didn't see any future for himself.' I told him that what he was calling the "love of his life" at 16 was not what he would choose as the love of his life at 26.' I also told him that this adolescent "drama" was normal , and that he would go through it a number of times, before he truly recognized who would ultimately be the "love of his life."' His attitude lightened up as he began to understand what normal meant.' I told him to distract himself with sports (releasing powerful endorphins) and friends, without harping on his situation, and it would pass...until the next time.' That is just simply what life is like.We have people who can't take a joke, can't tolerate a difference of opinion (after George W. Bush was re-elected, a psychologist in my area published an article talking about the massive depression in his patients who were Democrats - I was stunned and horrified that people would seek therapy for an election disappointment), who call everything "harassment," who go through difficulties and say that the rest of their lives are "ruined" because of that event, who say they can't function anymore in life because somebody pushed them too close to their actual potential, and so on.'Frankly, I worry that Americans are getting spiritually and psychologically weaker - voluntarily - because victimhood is attractive, and because there is a group for every type of victim that will help them to prolong the suffering. More >>

A young, female graduate of Monroe College in the Bronx, New York, is suing the school for a total of $70,000 she contends is the amount she spent on getting a degree that promised her a job.'I looked up Monroe College on the Internet, and this is what I read: "Whether preparing for a career or simply needing a part-time job, the Monroe College Office of Career Advancement provides expert advice and valuable services to help you.' Every student at Monroe College has a Career Advisor, who provides one-on-one assistance with career decision-making, resume and letter writing, and job search strategies.' The Office of Career Advancement helps with career assessment, resume writing, job search and strategy, employer recruitment and placement, interviewing skills, and other job search guidance.' Registering with E-recruiting allows you to view online job listings, post a resume to the database, and access additional web-based career resources." I don't see a promise or guarantee or money-back offer .' The college cannot guarantee against the world's financial issues.' Also, we don't know how well she did in her courses, or how aggressively she worked on getting a position, or how inventive and persistent she's been in trying to get herself situated.I wondered also if she weren't making a public spectacle in order to bully the college into giving her back her money, as she is heavily in debt and living with her single mother (who is also living on meager resources).' I don't know her motive first hand.' I just wonder.It's getting more and more annoying that more and more people figure they're entitled to things just because they want them.' That's an adolescent view (which consists only of a narcissistic perception of the world), and it's supposed to mature in one's twenties.I'm sorry she's in debt, but she made that choice.' I'm sorry she's having a hard time getting a job right now.' Maybe she has to choose something to do which has nothing to do with her degree just to sustain herself and her mom through these rough times that millions of people are also dealing with.' I'm sorry she's mad, but nobody owes her a living.' I'm sorry the media sees fit to make a big deal of her actions without some judgment as to the worthiness of those actions.I'm not sorry I'm mentioning this, as I want to make sure that none of magnificent listening audience slips into this childish state of pouting and stamping feet when life doesn't go the way you planned or wanted.' If there is one thing to learn from this girl, it's that life doesn't guarantee anything but the opportunity, and she's wasting it by whining.' If I were an employer, I wouldn't hire her after reading about these antics.' I would want a more mature individual who does what she has to do to survive, and makes the best of it.' That's the kind of person to respect and support. More >>

More >>

Last Monday, I stayed up late to watch " Dance Your Ass Off ," a new reality series on Oxygen.' I've said many times (and I stand by it), I loathe even the concept of what has been called "reality TV."' I find it generally exploitive, humiliating, demeaning, mean, stupid and guilty of lowering the American consciousness to sub-basement levels.' People are embarrassed, made fun of, attacked, and dismissed with a cavalier attitude of so-called judges or peered out.' These shows make it to air, because they're cheap to produce and because there seems to be no end to the appetite of some of the American public to lick their lips when others are behaving badly or grossly, or when people are being "thrown to the lions."When I heard there was a new TV show in which overweight people would compete in dancing, I thought this would be seriously sickening.' What a scenario for making fun of people!' " Dance Your Ass Off " has some of the elements of the typically disgusting reality format:' judges who have "not too judicious" comments, and someone who gets thrown out after some weeks.' But there is much more to this show in particular (in spite of the spicy title).'The scores are not only for their dancing (they're trained and choreographed by a professional dancer), but for how much weight they lose .' They all have access to a nutritionist who guides them in cooking and food choices and portion sizes.' So at the end of the Olympics-like scoring from 1 to 10 for the quality of their dancing that week, the percentage of weight lost that week is added to their individual score.' Therefore, a person could have been graded poorly for their dance program, but if they lost 5% of their body weight, they potentially could win the whole night!I like that this is just not a typical exploitation of people small or too big.' It's a real challenge for these people to get fit, lose weight, practice dancing, and perform.' The most significant part of the entire program that I appreciated was that there was no competition between these folks.' They all support each other in losing weight and doing their best.' There are no mean manipulations in order to throw somebody off the island or forced fights just for entertainment's sake.' These people work hard, and become quite committed to being fit.It's funny.' I thought this would be an utterly disgusting display, and it turns out it's one which is quite benevolent and fun to watch.' Seeing these folks working very hard in spite of their extra weight and lack of fitness is admirable and not something to giggle about.' Most of the time, the contestants behave quite respectfully when the judges are not that complimentary (and I think the judges are often out of order making demands of non-dancers who are overweight).' Nonetheless, overall, this show is quite supportive of the right behaviors. More >>

More >>

I love "Law & Order" and "Cold Case" types of programs, because of the cleverness of the characters in discerning truth from lies (either from witnesses or clues at a crime scene).' I find it fascinating.' Detective Goren from "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" seems to know everything about just everything, which is a plot device that sometimes strains credulity, but, in general, I find the most interesting leaps to be that of a "gut feeling" or a "hunch" which is not easily explained by logic until after the fact.Some people are better at this than others - perhaps it's an inner talent that is unique, or maybe that individual just pays more attention to detail, or maybe it's just the willingness to listen to that still, soft voice that tells you something just isn't right.I find that many people who call my radio program with concerns about the behaviors of someone they're dating already "knew" on some level that something just wasn't right.' But they ignored or denied those feelings because they wanted the fantasy to be true.' Generally, these desired fantasies turn into disasters.One caller earlier this week met a guy online who immediately treated her like he was her fairy godmother.' "Zap" with his wand, and they were off to foreign lands for lunch and distant places for vacations.' She found out that he was still married, even though he had said he was divorced.' She called me all upset and sad.I told her that she had behaved like a slut (yeah, I said that), because he had money.' Certainly, she couldn't have believed that he loved her - he didn't even KNOW her! She was gullible and pretty and sexually available and that was what he was looking for.' He wasn't looking for the love of his life.' She, however, wanted the princess fairy tale, and she had it for two months.' Meanwhile, she had suspended her good sense about why a man would operate like this with no real knowledge of the woman.' Answer?' Knowledge of the woman was not of interest to him.' Showing off and having passionate sex with a very willing woman was what he really wanted.Instead of worrying about not being able to trust men, and sobbing with great hurt at being dumped, I suggested that she start behaving like the kind of woman a real man without a selfish agenda would value.' She didn't listen to that small voice, and ended up used and humiliated.'Don't deny what you know in your gut, even in the midst of what seems like the most unbelievable reality.' It is unbelievable, because it is not to be believed. More >>

Romantically, beauty may be in the eyes of the beholder, but according to a new report from research done in Helsinki and London, girls are getting prettier, and guys are...well... not getting more handsome. "Scientists have found that evolution is driving women to become ever more beautiful, while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors," reports The London Times .' Evidently, beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts, and a higher proportion of those children are females who tend to be attractive.' A researcher at the University of Helsinki found beautiful women had up to 16% more children than plain women.' An evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics proclaimed that good-looking parents were far more likely to conceive daughters.' The most attractive parents (out of 15,000 Americans who were "judged") were 26% less likely to have sons. "Physical attractiveness is a highly heritable trait, which disproportionately increases the reproductive success of daughters much more than of sons.' If more attractive parents have more daughters, and if physical attractiveness is heritable, it logically follows that women over many generations gradually become more physically attractive on average than men," the researcher said.Well, here's my take.' I don't really know if any of this holds water, but let's assume for a moment that it does.' This means that a lot of beautiful women are marrying plain men because they are less into "beauty" and more into other qualities (like loyalty, fidelity, ability to provide and protect, sexual prowess, and status), while men want women who are beautiful because their beauty is a source of status for the male and a measure of her overall health for child-bearing.Nonetheless, I was quite impressed with the beyond gorgeous hunk Tom Selleck, when I learned that he married a rather plain-looking woman, and quite put off with Bruce Willis, when he married some hottie almost half his age.' To me, these choices told me the character and maturity of each man, with Selleck winning out.All of these "soft science" reports are amusing, if not generally nonsense, and it is amazing how differently you feel about a person's good looks after you meet and interact with them as opposed to just viewing a two-dimensional photograph.My main point here is this:' it's a fact that we are first attracted or repelled by looks (no kidding).' However, I suggest you try MY experiment:' walk through a mall or a flower garden, and look at the people paired up and holding hands or talking softly to one another.'' It's rare that one or both is "beautiful," but it is not rare that they are happy with the depth of compassion, attention, affection, support, fun, and happiness that they obviously share.The moral to this story?' Have good hygiene, make the most of the physical qualities you have, and don't focus at all on your looks (or anyone else's for that matter).' Put your best behavioral foot forward, and be open to meeting friends and a possible life partner based, instead, on how you make each other feel. More >>