Is Lizzie Velasquez as ugly as Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg? If either Mark or Bill were women, men all over the world (and some women) would be falling all over themselves to tell us how ugly they are but since Gates and Zuckerberg are guys, we never mention the fact those guys are damn ugly. We, instead, ignore their appearance because they are rich and will apparently have lots of breeding options with beautiful women because women are that shallow.

Of course there are some women out there who will marry men because the men are rich. But presumably rich men have other qualities too, like intelligence, and they like/love the woman they are marrying, presumably, right? (As Jane Austen says in Pride & Prejudice, "There is so much of gratitude or vanity in almost every attachment... but there are very few of us who have heart enough to be really in love without encouragement". In other words, we fall in love with those who fall in love with us.) But I am more impressed with the women who marry intelligent and kind men who make great companions rather than men who spend all their time chasing money.

When Newt Gingrich was still in the presidential race, I would say he was one truly ugly guy and men were astonished when I'd say something so shallow - yet men are seldom reluctant to mention women's appearance. Double standards much? Lets face it, Gingrich is really ugly and not just his appearance. However his appearance wasn't the subject of conversation, or if it was it was couched in other ways, like he was ugly all the way through, however Michelle Bachmann's was. Bachmann was not presidential material because of her inability to separate church from state so her polices were bad. Nevertheless her policies were seldom mentioned, yet references to her appearance were constant. There was nothing truly repulsive about Bachmanns appearance yet everyone focused their objections on her shoes or her "crazy" eyes (because enough photos were taken of her to find one had to belie something 'terrible' about her).

Its the perpetual comments on women's appearance that bother me, and especially by women. No doubt appearance is first and foremost a statement of a woman's genetic material. The better looking a woman is, the better her genes are likely to be and give the best indication of how good looking her offspring will be; hence the off-springs survival rate increases as their looks improve.

This gives me the impression all men are really doing when choosing a mate is selecting between different genetic material because a woman's purpose remains the same. Women's lives are mapped out for them and there is no choice. They find a partner, pretty much purely on the strength of their appearance, then they give birth. Assuming they survive the birthing process, they then go on to raise their kids. But in the end, women are pretty much interchangeable when it comes to raising kids, we raise children according to society's standards.

When women go around bemoaning another woman's appearance they are going along with this. We are constantly admonished never to judge a book by its cover but whenever we reduce a woman to merely her appearance, we are saying that all a woman is her breeding potential.

Men get to do something with their lives despite their appearance. Each man gets to make choices about his life. They get to do, make and achieve stuff. We see men overcoming obstacles and occupy pretty much every position in society. We keep an open mind about men because we know men can be good and bad and be of benefit or a detriment.

While I am the first to say the most important role in society is being a mother, women have a brain and they can use it. Women have the right choose to have children or not. They are entitled to make the same choices as men.

I hate charity. Its all about making someone who has more money than they need feel good about themselves by setting up some charity they 'give' money to only to then have the charity lend the money back to the person who set the charity up. This is a massive tax dodge.

If any of the 'charity' actually makes it to the actual 'charity', then its to charities that the 'rich' have been sold on by people who prey upon them and are paid handsomely by the charity to do so.

So the rich feel good about themselves and very little money actually makes it to deserving people.

I came across one guy who proudly spruiked that he gave away $1billion to charity, and i said to him, if you gave me $1billion, I'd fix healthcare in this country. He never answered me. Who knows who he gave the money too but one things for sure, it probably made no lasting worthwhile impact on society.

I am not saying that their aren't worthwhile charities. I think the micro-credit system is good and worthwhile but its not really a charity in that it gives money away, it is a entrepreneur scheme, that teaches women how to run a business and the responsibility with it. But then women are more responsible.

A libertarian one time told me that libertarians would feed the poor, so I asked him how. He rattled off the idea setting up soup kitchens. I suggested that everyone in our street sets up their own soup kitchen cos we were well off and care for others yet the next suburb over where everyone is poor, no one sets up a kitchen. What we need is organization and government is the kind of organization that is suited to figure out how to distribute soup en masse.

It is up-to government to make sure people have homes, enough food, money to pay their bills and access to healthcare. Government gets income via tax and then redistributes the money according to some hierarchy of needs. Sometimes government gets its priorities wrong and that is why we must monitor how government assigns money.

Accepting charity is often humiliating and even more so when asking for it. If the government is offering the money, it is up to the individual to ask for the money in the first place. Asking for charity from a church or other institution almost always comes with strings attached. I am not saying money from the government doesn't come with strings attached, but there are many causes - most don't have sexy sales people like charities do. Of course most corporations asking for money from the government have lobbyists. Perhaps this needs to be remedied.