As animals, which we are, our primary function is to survive and reproduce.

We build cities to keep the wild animals out that would feast upon our puny bodies. We are hopeless at self-defense if you are looking at our claws, teeth, fangs, ability to sprint... yet we have our brains which makes us utterly formidable.

As humans we have devised money as a form of universal exchange mechanism for goods and services which is quite ingenious but there are things that it notably does not quantify and perhaps it should, those things that men get from women that money can't pay for and when they do, the women are ridiculed for accepting money for those services.

We as members of a species take a long time to develop. We take about 9months in the womb and then an additional 20 or so years to become adults. We go from utter helplessness to crawling about oblivious to all the ways we could kill ourselves. Our mother takes care of us, kept us clean, feeding us, entertaining us, teaching us language, teaching us how to use the bathroom, how to dress ourselves, playing with us, personalized care in a 24/7 job for free.

The role of motherhood is so important to our species that about half of the species DONATES the BEST years of their lives to the endeavour. That is an extremely expensive occupation for the species and I am trying to think of another species that will dedicate so many resources to raising its young apart from ant colonies and bee hives where the entire colony/hive is dedicated to the task. Emperor penguins are also dedicated to the task of raising their young but only for a year.

However, since women do not charge nor seek any compensation for the time they spend raising their kids, the task of mothering is considered worthless. This was seen most graphically under Ceaușescu where women were forced to bear children they didn't want and the children were found neglected, unable to talk, use the bathroom, feed, cloth themselves or even show love, priceless lessons taught to us by our mothers. A lesson completely forgotten by America's anti-abortion people, that if a mother is going to teach her child to love, one would assume the mother must do so willingly and not have it forced upon them.

I sometimes wonder whether women also believe motherhood is worthless. One person told me now her kids were raised she could go and do something important now. Um, raising kids is the most valuable thing you did for your children. Someone else told me her kids went to school knowing how to read and write, as if that was the most important thing she'd taught her kids. Women underestimate how valuable their work is in raising their kids and this is tragic. Women are doing the most valuable job for our species, they are raising the next generation and all else pales in comparison.

Money is what men chase for the opportunity to breed. The more money a man has the better his chances are to breed and if one woman rejects him, another will accept him because nothing makes raising children so easy as having lots of money around. This may be one of the reasons why society endeavours to keep money out of women's hands.

A man can use money to tempt a women to breed with him. A woman with money doesn't need a man beyond genetic material. She can employ people to help her raise her children, if necessary. But this would leave a pool of disconnected men. While women depend on men for money, men depend on women for love, a home and connection - men love their kids too. But a man's ability to provide income does not necessarily make him a good companion or father.

However the reality is men don't always stick around, they die, they get sick and women still need income to support themselves and their kids while raising their kids. Society has benefited too long from the generosity of women raising the next generation for free.

One of my questions has been why are women mean to each other? I wrote in June 2012 about sexist women.

Recently a friend pointed me to this spiel by Malcolm X where he discusses the difference between the field verses house negro. It is my opinion that there are many women who are the same with male authority.

There are clear cases where women are being good house Negroes. One excellent example is this woman who is in a "domestic discipline" marriage where her husband uses corporal punishment if she 'misbehaves'.

"These are the women that call their husbands names and hide things from him and just want their husbands to obey them while they respond with calling them weak and stupid. They have no idea how to act a wife should act and make their husbands feel feminized and displaced and frustrated. Then they wonder why they cheat with the first woman that boosts their confidence and validates them as MEN rather than puppets.In short they (other women) are not woman enough to HONOR their husbands with the vow of obedience and submission that they promised when they stood in front of an ordained official...."

Don't get me wrong, what goes on between consenting and willing adults in the bedroom is no-one's business but their own, but why does she assume women who don't get disciplined by their husband call their husbands names, get them to obey her or know how to act like a wife? I don't expect my husband to be a puppet. It seems to me that she is telling other women that they should be disciplined by their husbands too.

She goes on to say "I have never met a woman that knows my husband and said they didn't want a man like him."

Perhaps if these other women knew more about this woman's husband they would run a mile, yet the bottom-line seems to be that if you want to have a happy marriage, you need to be hit by your husband. There seems to be a large group of people who seem to think domestic discipline is key to a happy marriage.

The point they make is it seems to be that men feel manly when they hit their wife. And this is an awful price to pay to endure all this pain to make your husband feel like a man. Are men's egos truly so fragile?

'Christians' seem eager to practice domestic discipline too. "On a biblical sense God says a wife SHOULD submit to and obey her husband and that HE is the head of the family and God his the head of the man." Although the only reference I can find to women being submitting to their husbands was not in the gospels.

Nevertheless there does seem to be a homogenization of women. Women telling women they must be submissive to their husbands for a marriage to work. And this is the only role women can play. This is supreme sexism.

But Jesus did say the following:

I have heard a lot of Christians argue that Jesus was actually being symbolic. And perhaps he was, but then again, perhaps he wasn't.

"If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Matt 5:29

In my opinion, Jesus is telling men, in Matt 19:12 to give up their power over others, because it is through their gender that they derive their authority over others.

Christians aren't the only ones eager to justify the beating of women.  Islam is keen as well.

The woman, in the top picture on the right, is directing her message to white non-Muslim women rather than men. It is not white women who are going to shoot her in the head if she goes to school, perform honor killings on her or her sister or kill her if she is raped by a married man, it will be Muslim men who will. Nor will non-Muslim women sew their vagina's up before she gets married to a Muslim man, it'll be her Muslim mother, presumably another good house Negro. Similarly Camaroon mothers iron the breasts of their daughters rather than training their sons not to rape (could it just be that the key to building a better society is having men learn self-control?).

I am sure that not all women are treated badly in Islam, especially those who've immigrated to tolerant western countries.

I have often complained that I don't care what women wear, so long as its her choice. If women have chosen to wear the hijab to indicate her indifference to the expectations of women's appearance, I fully support that, however, it's doubtful she'd have a choice in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

I recently found a facebook group, Muslim women against FEMEN. The problem seems to me to be that women don't tolerate other women's opinion. Again, I have no problems with any woman wearing whatever she chooses to wear so long as it is her choice. Although I must admit to liking FEMEN because of their gutsy taking off their tops. Not all of them would be accorded super model status and I admire them posing topless because of that.

It seems to me though, this is all about the men though. Women attacking each other, keeping each other in their place. Seriously, Muslim women, wearing a hajib does NOT make you equal to men. Until men wear hajibs, you are still a Muslim woman wearing a hajib.

I have had men get furious when I generalized about them. But it seems to me that women teach other women to be generic. One women is taught to be pretty much interchangeable with another woman when we are given books like Sleeping Beauty to read as young girls, we have to wait until a man wakes us up.

Not until women allow each other to express their own individuality as men demand and expect, will women be equal to men.

Then there are women who just hate other women like Candice DeLong from Deadly Women. I strongly suspect that someone with as much vitriol towards women as Ms DeLong has, needs someone to kick who they feel is lower than them, like any other bully.

Meanwhile, this girl thinks women hate each other because we are raised in a competitive world.

ON April 25th, 2013, @BillClinton posted this photo in a tweet where he congratulated George and Laura Bush on the opening of the @TheBushCenter. He was proud "Hillary and I could be there".

What a bunch of pals or cronies, I guess is what you'd call them, Barry, W, Bill, Jimmy and George senior? because there are no other living presidents that I know of.

But here I get the full meaning of what the libertarians say when they say we are being gamed. These guys belong to an elite club that you and I do not belong too.

We know, we were kinda expecting that, they are after all presidents of the US. But there I get a sense that their first loyalty is to each other and not us. And despite all that the Right say about Obama, he's a muslim, a communist, a fascist, a socialist, a whatever... he's actually one of them, just not quite as white as the others.

When the 2008 primaries were happening, Obama ran a campaign with "Change" as a motto. My husband said, we only want a 'little bit' of change, not the change that may have come with Hillary Clinton. These days I am even less certain there would be any change if Hillary Clinton had won the primaries.

In the end, little has changed. These guys belong to the same team, these guys have other peoples interests at heart, and those people belong to the 1%, not the 99%.

The NRA love telling you how dangerous a country becomes after the population has had the guns removed from the population. This is of course not true. Australia took its guns off its population and the country became much safer.

This is clearly not going to work in a country so enamoured of its guns as the US is. Gun manufacturers need their income after all. Naively, Americans think of it as their second amendment remedy. They think if the US government goes insane they'll be able to save themselves from their government, the government that controls the biggest military forces in the world.

I doubt the rag-tag people of America will be able to go against their own military. While it is possible they will all die against their military, it is doubtful the US will be able to hold onto the country in the long run. Despite Afghanistan and Iraq folding quickly to US forces, they weren't very successful at subduing the population but I have often wondered whether they are honing their skills against civilian militia by prolonging the wars in these countries in preparation, but for what?

The general US population is unprepared for large scale action against them so it makes them an easy target especially since they have little access to healthcare and the foods that the US govt permit its people is making them sick and fat thus they become even easier targets.

The reality is there is not enough mental healthcare available to weed out the people responsible for taking guns into school, cinemas, work, where ever to suicide by rampage.

The other major cause of gun fatalities is the drug war, and possibly ending the drug war would prevent many of them.

I don't usually engage in these debates and if I do I usually say all women should have guns.

Women having guns may help women against rapists, but honestly if I was being raped, I would prefer to taser the guy. I don't want the added complication of whether I murdered someone who was trying to assault me. I just don't want to be raped. And personally I don't like the stand your ground laws.

But the above cartoon has some chilling statistics on guns in the home. In my post about domestic violence,  more women have died at the hands of their partners than all the people who have died in the war on terror.

However, the US military gives soldiers intense training before they are given guns. I don't understand why the same isn't required of people wanting to buy guns, kind of like the requirement to learn how to drive a car before getting a driving license. Also before buying a gun, you should be required to submit to a mental examination to find out whether you are abusing your wife or likely to go on a killing rampage before being allowed to even do the required training course. Gun licenses should be renewed every year and each person should be re-evaluated each year to see whether they are still mentally fit to own and use the gun.

Each gun you own should require a separate license.