Using Children as Weapons

December 21, 2012

Nonie Darwish

If these are not abuses of the human rights of the child, what is?

In the Middle East, children are being used by the adults who should be caring for them to turn them into jihadist weapons to conquer the world — sometimes with bombs strapped onto them to kill their perceived enemies. Children are given gun training to learn how to kill Jews, and are told that dying for the sake of jihad is the highest honor and the only guarantee to go to heaven. If these are not abuses of the human rights of the child, what is? In the elementary school we attended in Gaza, the political and cultural agenda of the Arab world was pushed down our throats in effectively every subject.

American children today are also suffering from adult agendas shoved down their throats: the environmental agenda, the feminist agenda, the gay agenda, the Islamist agenda, the class-envy agenda, the racial-divide agendas, the animal-rights agenda, ad infinitum. What people in the West fail to see is that they, too, are using their children as weapons: as tools to bring about social, cultural and political change, often to destroy the American system as we know it and replace it with a new America that the popular culture and many Americans seem so desperate to accomplish.
Experiments in child rearing do not only happen in ignorant third world countries, where people do not know better. My daughter came home from high school asking which topic to pick for an essay she was asked to write. The topics were: suicide, mass murder, or being bullied and oppressed because you are gay or from a certain race or national background. When I suggested “none,” her answer was that this was the list the teacher given.
Boys are told that what was once considered normal boy play, roughhousing, has now become a crime, bullying. Girls are encouraged to perceive themselves as victims of men and marriage, and to feel hurt about it.
The American political and social divides are trickling down to our schools and placing horrific pressure on our kids. In divorces, the father is watching his kids taken away from him while the mother is told she can do everything on her own without a father. In political and cultural divisions, adults are also acting like hostile, divorcing parents tearing their kids apart during custody battles. As in the Middle East, where kids are unintentionally hurt for political, social and psychological experimentation, in America we are also usurping their innocence.
Adam Lanza, mentally ill or not, may not have had to end the way he did. He lacked fear of authority while living in the isolation of a large home with a mother desperate to please him by taking him shooting, buying assault weapons, guns and ammunition for a son she knew was not well. This mother was told by the popular culture that she could replace the father in her son’s life, and that the son would not feel any difference whether the father’s activities were done by the father or her. This poor mother told her friends she was trying to bond with her 20-year-old son — what she unfortunately did not know was that this is an age when young men hate to be seen with their mothers.
American culture has hurt women, children and the family structure by telling women they could do everything, by telling men they are disposable and by telling girls that motherhood and marriage are unnecessary.
In the larger picture, the American epidemic of mass gun shootings by young men could be a cry for help by several generations of American kids who have suffered under decades of experimentation and indoctrination in our public schools. It could also be a cry for help by American single mothers, who are told they can take the role of both men and women in the family including the difficult task of raising young boys to adulthood alone. Women need a break; and kids need fathers as much as they need mothers. They also need the traditional extended family relations: the nurturing grandmother, the funny uncle or aunt, cousins. It is time for America to end the self-righteous pressure on our kids to change America.

Nonie Darwish is author of “The Devil We Don’t Know” and president of


Cheap dates – How the ‘price’ of sex has dropped to record lows

October 2, 2011
the media makes a note of how the progressives have caused an imbalance in our lives, but the feminist solution will cause repression and a break down of our economy. very sad that the people who have access to research are part of the problem.. Obviously written from a feminist or womanist (whatever they want to call themselves this week) point of view because we all understand that sex is already scarce… in fact many of our economic problems are related directly to it’s scarcity. Sex should be part of daily life. The modern day Mohammad can thank the feminists for his cost effective brothel. With no American man working… guess who is buying all our workforce? They don’t call it the service sector for nothing. Guess who gets the job and guess who doesn’t? Do a Google search for the word “Mancession”.
(NYPOST) In today’s lousy economy, men can take comfort in knowing that there is one sought-after good that is becoming steadily more affordable: sex. Women are jumping into the sack faster and with fewer expectations about long-term commitments than ever, effectively discounting the “price” of sex to a record low, according to social psychologists. More than 25% of young women report giving it up within the first week of dating. While researchers don’t have a baseline to compare it to, interviews they have conducted lead them to believe this is higher than before, which increases the pressure on other women and changes the expectations of men. “The price of sex is about how much one party has to do in order to entice the other into being sexual,” said Kathleen Vohs, of the University of Minnesota, who has authored several papers on “sexual economics.” “It might mean buying her a drink or an engagement ring. These behaviors vary in how costly they are to the man, and that is how we quantify the price of sex.” By boiling dating down to an economic model, researchers have found that men are literally getting lots of bang for their buck. Women, meanwhile, are getting very little tat for their . . . well, you get the idea. Sex is so cheap that researchers found a full 30% of young men’s sexual relationships involve no romance at all — no wooing, dating, goofy text messaging. Nothing. Just sex. Men want sex more than women do. It’s a fact that sounds sexist and outdated. But it is a fact all the same — one that women used for centuries to keep the price of sex high (if you liked it back in the day, you really had to put a ring on it). With gender equality, the Pill and the advent of Internet porn, women’s control of the meet market has been butchered. As a result, says Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, men are “quicker to have sex in our relationships these days, slower to commitment and just plain pickier.” The issue is partly one of supply and demand, and it begins at US colleges, where 57% of students are women. With such an imbalanced sex ratio, women are using hookups to compete with other women for men’s affections. Once they get out of school, the pool of successful, educated men also is imbalanced, and the bed-hopping continues. Regnerus likens the price of sex to the housing market. Too many foreclosures in one community, and the price of neighboring homes start to plummet. This is why single women in New York sometimes feel as though sex on the first date is a given: According to the market, it is. “Every sex act is part of a ‘pricing’ of sex for subsequent relationships,” Regnerus said. “If sex has been very easy to get for a particular young man for many years and over the course of multiple relationships, what would eventually prompt him to pay a lot for it in the future — that is, committing to marry?” Did you answer, “Love”? You’re adorable. “Sexual strategies for making men ‘fall in love’ typically backfire, because men don’t often work like that,” Regnerus says. It’s little wonder that the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who are married has shrunk by an average of 1% each year this past decade — down to 46% now. Single women have been catching on, but those who don’t discount sex say they can’t seem to get anyone to “pay” their higher price. As with many other markets, outsourcing and technology have affected the price of sex as well. “If men don’t want to take the time to woo a real woman, they can watch sex acts in high definition with images of women who never say no,” Regnerus says. “If you have a suboptimal date with someone you met online, you’re apt now to log on and see who else is available rather than to have another try at it.” The poor economy is adding to men’s reluctance to commit. Men worry about not being able to provide for a family and about the economic pitfalls of divorce.So, what can women do to return the balance of sexual power in their favor? Stop putting out, experts say. If women collectively decided to cross their legs, the price of sex would soar and women would regain control of the market. Like a whoopie cartel. Women in less egalitarian countries do tend to restrict sex as a means of keeping the cost high. That would explain all the violence in the third word.
This makes sense when women have no access to education and employment. But in the US, it would take a major cultural movement for women to convince each other to say no to nookie. “Let’s be realistic: It’s not going to happen here,” Regnerus says. “Women don’t really need men and marriage — economically, socially, and culturally — like they once did. What I hear in interviews with women is plenty of complaining about men or about the dating scene, but their annoyance is seldom directed at other women.”Stats prove that those who have sex regularly are happier and live longer. Denying sex will create repression and that will cause anger, violence and misery… which is exactly what is happening. Again the media notes a problem… and the solution they prescribe is part of the problem. a young attractive girl has no problem getting work out of college. When foreign money comes and colonializes America the pretty young girls from Oregon and Washington state will be the first to be employed. Most of us are well aware of that phenomenon. In the old days of Mohammad it was a little bit less discrete, but we know what the rest of the world thinks of our women. They give it a nice name. They call it the service sector. We are aware the ladies have work. Sorry the truth is offensive… but there is a reason Conservative women are getting elected… it is because so called Conservative women have money. They are the ones who get hired… and it isn’t because of any talent… or at least not because of any legal talent. If the price of sex drops then the free market reacts by increasing the supply… this means PROSTITUTION. If one man can not afford to keep one woman happy then she distributes the financial burden. The rich then can afford to put together their harems on a cost effective basis.

The Male Sex Has Become like Economic Jews

September 17, 2011
While it is true that men are more likely to reach the highest levels of income, it is also true that men as a gender these days are discriminated against and have a very hard time staying employed at all. There is a historic parallel. Ironically many feminists have compared opportunities for Jews as being similar to opportunities for women, but the comparison does not work because structurally woman have nothing comparable in experience to Jews. On the other hand the male gender is very much like the Jewish experience. People look at Jews and say two contradictions: Jews are successful and also they hate the Jews. How can this happen that Jews as a group can both be statistically triumphant in their success and also experience hardship on the way up? Look no further then the male sex for the answer. Men have a problem staying employed. Multiply that with a mancession and you see a fascinating dichotomy. Men are both the highest wage earners and the sex that is most likely to be unemployed… very much like Jews (a patriarchal belief system). America’s ability to end our economic woes and America’s abuse of Jews and Men are tied together because they share an experience. Women can get a job easily due to pink collar growth in the service sector, but men are on the streets. A Jew has a very hard time getting a job, but then a Jew is statistically more likely to get a top position. Instead of following the Barbara Ehrenreich formula and attacking Wallmart for hiring too many men to top positions or the Ron Paul formula of pointing out all the Jews who come out of Goldman Sachs, What really needs to happen is there needs to be a concerted effort to fight discrimination on the ground level. If a man or a Jew can not get a peon job at a cash register or trying data entry then these people will take actions to educated themselves so that they do not face more hardship. And perhaps this is why there is so much Antisemitism in progressive forums because their solution is always in blaming success when in fact the hatred of the winners is what makes the winners. Instead of looking in envy at a circumcised penis it is time for women and the progressives to allow men in their circles. The women, femmes and those who fit in to societies philosophical norm have created their own pain by not letting us in the door.

Why the Mancession is a PROBLEM for women

August 13, 2011

…Heather Jarvis AKA Pippi Longstocking of the SLUT WALK…

Some Conservatives did not appreciate me insinuating that the Slut Walk was really not helping things. I actually understood exactly what the Toronto police officer was talking about when he told the ladies to not dress like Sluts. It really isn’t helping things to dress like Sluts. I understand that this concept runs in conflict with many right wingers that like to think of themselves as the police man who helps the little ladies… but what both Conservatives and the feminists fail to understand is that Marx was right about one thing. When the people… and in this case MEN are out of work and are not able to live normal nuclear lifestyles, they react…. and violently. Dressing like whores when men can’t afford to pay for sex… will cause a violent response. (and yes we all know the ladies have little respect for marriage these days. Do you expect the men to just deny themselves?) This is not a moral concept. This is the inevitable consequence of sexual repression combined with little hope. I realize that this is threatening to some, but it is not a statement of a belief in moral justice. My analysis is a statement of fear. It isn’t class warfare that I am talking about. When men start raping women they won’t end up well. There won’t be any utopia after the raping. I’m just stating that men right now feel like caged animals.

Unlike Marx I think when people react violently without first working within the system that it is a very bad thing, but it is inevitable if women continue to disreguard men in the way they do at men’s moment of need that men will do horrible things to women.

The Decline of Men or Just the Rise of Women?

August 11, 2011

Looks like the progressive Libertarian Gender Engineer Feminists are taking note that they are no longer in the perceptual moral lead. It must be scary for them.If women are more likely to be employed then men are, then why would they reward men who work hard? women who are autonomous are not in need of cash. could it be that our entire culture is deteriorating because we are not rewarding men for hard work? The other question is how do we reward women’s libido? working hard and getting ugly from it would not quench a woman’s needs.
Cato Unbound has an interesting symposium on the changing status of men in society, including a lead essay by Kay Hymowitz arguing that men are in decline and “falling behind.” The idea that the men are declining is not unique to Hymowitz. Anthropologist Lionel Tiger has a book advancing the same thesis. Other writers have also taken up this mantra.

Nineteenth and early century anti-Semitism flourished in part because many Europeans didn’t understand that the economy wasn’t a zero-sum game in which gains for Jews can only come at the expense of gentiles. Today’s fears that economic gains for women somehow harm men are similarly misplaced. Even if women end up out-earning men (which they are still far from doing), that does not mean that men have been harmed, any more than gentiles suffer because of the much higher average income and educational attainment of Jews. But the evidence underpinning the case for male decline doesn’t add up. Most of it consists of the well-known facts men now have slightly lower levels of educational attainment compared to women, and never-married men trail comparable women in income. However, there is no actual decline in male performance in either field. Rather, what has happened is that women are doing much better than before thanks to economic and social changes that have opened up new opportunities for them. When several European nations lifted legal disabilities imposed on Jews in the 19th century, the percentage of Jews in various occupations and educational institutions rapidly increased, and the percentage of gentiles in the same fields fell. Obviously, gentiles were not “in decline.” Rather, Jews were doing better because of the easing of discrimination against them. Much the same can be said of women over the last few decades. On balance, men actually benefit from the rise of women, just as gentiles benefited from that of the Jews. Everyone is better off when society is able to more fully benefit from developing the talents of more of its people.

Comparing Jews to women is rather silly. It is fair to say the attributes are not the same. Jews might not have expertise in the same skills as women and vice versa. To bring up economic issues one must take this into consideration.

It’s also worth noting that men continue to dominate the highest levels of achievement in many occupations, in part because the variation in male achievement is greater than that among women. Men are more likely to become high school dropouts than women(thereby explaining some of the data cited by Hymowitz), but they are also more likely to be at the top of the class or their profession. yes,

but a minority of elite men who make more then women will not effect the ecosystem

Hymowitz also argues that men have suffered because of the “collapse of marriage norms.” However, the data shows that only about 20% of men aged 40–44 have never been married. And even that twenty percent doesn’t all consist of people deprived of marriage opportunities by social change. Some men (like some women) simply don’t want to be married, and anywhere from 3 to 9 percent of men are gay (gay marriage is a recent phenomenon, and is still available in only a few states). Marriage continues to be available to those men who want it.

er… marriage is not available for men who argue against these progressive points. just look at advertising. the progressive are openly saying to their peers to use sexuality to further their agenda. There is no doubt in my mind that a person like myself has a harder time getting a mate because we are not open to women taking our jobs.

And despite Hymowitz’s concern that men have lost their status as providers for the family, married men who live with their spouses still have incomes about a third higher than those of married women.

The married men are expected to share the income. I’m not certain the same is true with women.

Whether or not married men should be the primary bread-winners in their families, the majority still are.

Hymowitz does identify two genuine areas of male decline. It is certainly true, that men have suffered a relative loss from the diminishing importance of occupations where physical strength is a key job qualification. On balance, however, men — like women — have benefited enormously form the rise of modern technology that has displaced work previously performed by human brawn. It has made an enormous range of goods more readily available to a wide range of people at lower prices. Men who rely on physical strength to make a living were relatively more in demand fifty years ago. But their overall standard of living was far lower than today.

that is if the men can afford the goods at all Also I’m not sure if this assumption is true at all. not sure where they see that.

Hymowitz is on firmer ground in pointing to the extremely low marriage rates and high rates of single-parenthood among poor African-Americans and Hispanics. This is a genuine social tragedy. But it has little to do with any broader decline of the male gender. Rather, it is in large part caused by the War on Drugs, which imprisons a high percentage of young inner city males, thereby making family formation extremely difficult. The best way to begin to restore family values in poor minority communities is to end the War on Drugs. That’s likely to be a lot more helpful than worrying about the supposed decline of males.

if you take all the jobs away from men then the black market is the only solution.
I’m not sure I see any argument here either.

UPDATE:…Hymowitz doesn’t, in so many words, say that men are in decline, merely that they are “falling behind.” That phrasing is consistent with a view that men are better off than before, but merely haven’t made as many gains as women have in recent years. Still, it’s hard to justify concern about men “falling behind” unless there is some actual harm to men involved, as opposed to merely having slightly lower educational attainment (and among the never-married, slightly lower income) than women.

do a Google search for, “Mancession”. It is real. The men are feeling it. The reason this topic has come up is because obviously the feminists can feel the angry breathing down their necks. I would go much further then say that women have cost men jobs. I would go so far as to say all our economic ills relate to this Gender revolution dating back to the mid 20th century and reaching it’s zenith in the early 90s. I’m glad we now have cancer suffering Barbara Ehrenreich (Karma is a BITCH ain’t it?) and Gloria Steinem’s attention, but our society is now in decline. The cultural engineers are now screaming about proof. They are attempting to obscure… but when you are talking about social science there is no proving anything. The rage begins while the feminists play socratic after censoring men in the University for decades. Consider this Larry Summers’s revenge. It isn’t a matter of asking if women caused damage at this point. It is a matter of asking where the terrorism will launch. Gabrielle Giffords is the start. Our friend Anders in Norway is one of many. While the progressives point fingers at bloggers,,, there are zillions of men who are about to react. See how Socratic the feminists are in the University when faced with a gun…. oh… and don’t send the police to my door. That was tried already. I’m here to give the message. I’m not here to kill anyone. There will be others to do it for me. Till that point… go ahead and make little arguments about if the feminist movement has effected men or not.

Randy: “. No wonder 75% of divorces are filed by women. What is the economic incentive to stay married when you can take the kids and most of your ex-husband’s paycheck.” Yes, every single divorced woman I know says that she is so much better off working a full time job and taking care of the kids.With all that free time they have, they write about how rotten men are. “Women say they want equality but then parade around in their Slut marches acting like they are completely blameless when it comes to sexual misconduct and sexual violence. Just don’t fault a female college student because she goes out in a top with her boobs popping out and a skirt that barely covers her behind, then flirts with men endlessly because the attention makes her feel good, doesn’t bring a dollar to buy her own drinks because she is going to con men into buying them all for her, then dance in a sexually suggestive manner with a man, and then off all things don’t expect a man to get any ideas that she might want something more than to wave “ta-ta” at the end of the night and go home. If women truly think that kind of behavior is acceptable and risk free then they really are from Venus.” So why do you keep falling for such behavior? ” In the USSA, women use marriage and politics to gain wealth, status and opportunity that by their merits they would not deserve.”

You can PROVE Anything About Boys Without Fathers
Why are we playing Lysenkoism with children?

In the pre-1970 era, when surveys showed women with higher levels of happiness, most men held jobs that enabled their wives to be fulltime homemakers. “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness” is a peer-reviewed reseach publication by Drs. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, forthcoming American Economic Journal: Economic Policy http://bpp.wharton.upenn.e​du/betseys/papers/Paradox%​20of%20declining%20female%​20happiness.pdfEach year since 1972, the United States General Social Survey has asked men and women: “How happy are you, on a scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being very happy, and 1 being not too happy?” This survey includes a representative sample of men and women of all ages, education levels, income levels, and marital status–1,500 per year for a total of almost 50,000 individuals thus far–and so it gives us a most reliable picture of what’s happened to men’s and women’s happiness over the last few decades. As you can imagine, a survey this massive generates a multitude of findings, (see the full report by Wharton Professors Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers) but here are the two most important discoveries. First, since 1972, women’s overall level of happiness has dropped, both relative to where they were forty years ago, and relative to men. You find this drop in happiness in women regardless of whether they have kids, how many kids they have, how much money they make, how healthy they are, what job they hold, whether they are married, single or divorced, how old they are, or what race they are. (The one and only exception: African-American women are now slightly happier than they were back in 1972, although they remain less happy than African American men.)

the economy has killed blue collar jobs. and yet the stimulus money was used to attempt to push pink colar (where there is real growth) into taking jobs from men.
[Video comment]
image by

Recession?: Only for Men; Women Gain in Tough Economy

January 16, 2010

nomen.jpgNeal Boyle completed training for a truck driver's license after being laid off in March from the US Gypsum plant in Charlestown and failing to find good-paying work elsewhere.

There is discriminatory spending by our government of the stimulus bill. It has gotten so bad that the media is renaming the recession the “Man-cession”. The only sector of the economy that is in growth are jobs that women are stronger at. Pink collar over the last ten years has grown 10%. Keep in mind there isn’t any equivalence between the sexes in other ways because society is unforgiving to unemployed men and we do not have a domestic option. The educational system has also gone out of it’s way to discriminate towards men. and yet our government is still pushing affirmative action in the stimulus bill? someone has to explain to these feminists about social engineering… it has always failed the people. While the Pink Collar fascists still have pictures of Hillary Clinton and her pant suit crew on their profile pictures on facebook, out-of-wedlock births to young women is getting out of hand… and guess what? It isn’t daddy’s fault!

Men are losing jobs at far greater rates than women as the industries they dominate, such as manufacturing, construction, and investment services, are hardest hit by the downturn. Some 1.1 million fewer men are working in the United States than there were a year ago, according to the Labor Department. By contrast, 12,000 more women are working

someone has to explain to these feminists about social engineering… it has always failed the people. While the Pink Collar fascists still have pictures of Hillary Clinton and her pant suit crew on their profile pictures on facebook, out-of-wedlock births to young women is getting out of hand… and guess what? It isn’t daddy’s fault!

Inflation-adjusted median income for young families has declined from $44,000 in 1979 to $38,000 in 2007, Sum said. During the same period, as jobs that allowed less-educated men to support a family have diminished, out-of-wedlock births to young women rose to 50 percent of births, from 20 percent in 1980


Over the past couple of decades, the male-female ratio on campuses has been changing dramatically. Women outnumber men by a 4-3 ratio on college campuses. Men currently make up only 43 percent of college graduates. In short, many today acknowledge that there is a crisis of the disappearing educated male.

sexist campus activism of participants in the nation’s 500 college gender studies departments. The conference program, attended by about 100 professors and student affairs personnel, exposed some unpleasant facts: men are “overrepresented” in drug and alcohol abuse, violations of campus regulations, and acts of violence and sexual assault, and they are “underrepresented” in academic programs and campus leadership activities.

Over the past couple of decades, the male-female ratio on campuses has been changing dramatically. Women outnumber men by a 4-3 ratio on college campuses. Men currently make up only 43 percent of college graduates.

In short, many today acknowledge that there is a crisis of the disappearing educated male.Hostility toward men and masculinity begins in daycare and increases each year thereafter. Sexual harassment training and policies have created an uncertain environment, if not a hostile one, where men have to watch their every word and action lest it be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Some experts criticize a campus “worldview that sees things only in terms of oppressors and the oppressed.” Typically, the few campus men’s studies programs are designed to push an anti-masculinity agenda.

the women shit on us. they take all the jobs. meanwhile affirmative action in the stimulus bill when the industry that is effected by job losses is men’s. the problem is getting worse, but the burden is all men’s.
the feminists then demonstrated the death grip they hold over Obama and the leaders of the Democratic Party. The feminists swung into action with noisy accusations that the stimulus discriminated against women because its jobs would go mostly to men.
The feminists had no sympathy with the fact that men were victims of most of the lost jobs because the majority of manufacturing and construction jobs are men’s jobs. The segments of our economy dominated by women — social services, education, health, childcare and welfare — have actually gained jobs during this recession.
Nevertheless,the feminists demanded that half the stimulus jobs be given to women. The feminists worked to achieve this result by directing the stimulus funds into the types of jobs where women predominate and by allocating at least a third of the spending in manufacturing and construction industries to training women for those men’s jobs.
All the feminist organizations joined in the political clatter. They called for a meeting so they could lecture Obama’s economic advisers and hurl their demands that the stimulus package create jobs that women like, such as workplace-comfortable inside jobs with air-conditioned offices and carpeted floors.
As one tactic to intimidate Obama administration officials, the feminists successfully insisted that participants in the meeting be seated in a circle without a table between them — a format that enabled the feminists to be confrontational. The feminists created their own vocabulary to shout at the men, demanding jobs for “human infrastructure” and “human bridges,” which were euphemisms for social service, health-care, childcare and librarian jobs.
The feminists were well aware that Obama’s chief economist is Larry Summers, the former president of Harvard University, who had already proven himself a pushover for pushy feminists. His embarrassing confrontation with hysterical feminist faculty over academic math and science professorships proved that there is no way to appease the feminists and that apologizing to them only makes matters worse.

60% of college grads and grad school programs like law degrees are occupied by women. I don’t have a problem with this, but it is a little unfair to ask for affirmative action.we idolize Asia’s strong educational ethos, but seem to fear Asia’s strong cultural patriarchal view of the family. strong traditional Jewish values were patriarchal too. I’m not saying that we should turn the world upside down for anyone, but the gender revolution and our school’s ability to create innovators seem to be running parallel. women have strengths. their emotional quotient gets work in the modern world, why are we still doing this to men? Gender Engineering is destructive to all of us.
oh… and stop thinking I hate women. I love women… I want women. they don’t want me because I don’t have a job and they do.

Breast cancer, Barbara Ehrenreich

Read more about this at
or you will get CANCER like Barbara Ehrenreich

The New “Gender Gap”: You Know Who’s Really Hardest Hit . . .

January 7, 2010

kind of hard to do if the ladies aren’t sticking around because the guys are all broke from the gender controls of the feminists running the government… sigh. wonder what the statistics are on dildos?

CNN has the news:

“Researchers have long known that not only is sex fun (when done with the right person, of course), but that people who have frequent sex tend to live longer and have healthier hearts and lower rates of certain cancers. These studies also show that men with an active sex life have healthier sperm, and sexually active women have fewer menopause symptoms.”

The story goes on to report that studies show the following benefits as well:
1. A longer life
2. A healthier heart
3. Lower blood pressure
4. Lower risk of breast cancer
5. Lower risk of prostate cancer
6. Pain relief
7. A slimmer physique
8. Better testosterone levels
9. Fewer menopause symptoms
10. Healthier semen