By Mike Buchanan, J4MB: I was called at around 08:00 today by a researcher working on Nick Ferrari’s breakfast show, asking if I’d contribute to the show 10 minutes later, in connection with this piece on the BBC website. I agreed, and I’m hoping to receive the audio file tomorrow from LBC, so I can post it on our YouTube channel. Among a number of points, I made the point that misandry is common, and misogyny very rare. Besides, it’s not misogyny if you hate Alison Saunders, Jess Phillips, Harriet Harman et al. It’s a civic duty.
I cannot, offhand, recall an instance of a parliamentarian uttering the word “misandry”, and perhaps surprisingly, the person in question was a woman – Baroness Williams of Trafford [left]. Her comments leave little doubt as to her personal views about considering misandry as a hate crime. An extract from the article, emphases ours:
The Law Commission – an independent body that looks regularly at laws and whether they need to be updated – began its review of hate crime following a campaign by the Labour MP Stella Creasy.
She wanted misogyny to be recognised in the same way as racial or religious hatred because of the high levels of harassment that girls and women suffer.
As for why hostility against men is being included too, Home Office Minister Baroness Williams says the government always responds to what “the public and other organisations are telling us”. [J4MB: A barefaced lie.] And it appears at least some feel misandry is an issue.
By Doug MortimerThe US Constitution provides every state, no matter its acreage or population, with two senators. At first blush, it may not make sense to provide tiny states, such as Rhode Island or Delaware, or thinly populated states, such as Alaska or Montana, with the same level of representation as California or New York, but it is a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. In the United States Senate no state is more powerful than any other.
In 1788 the only way the founding fathers could hammer out a Constitution acceptable to all 13 states was to compose a compact that addressed the fears of sparsely populated or smaller states, whose representatives were worried about the potential of being dominated by the states that were settled first and had more inhabitants (e.g., Pennsylvania, Virginia, Massachusetts). 37 states later, those fears still exist.
States’ rights aside, by providing for two senators per state, the founding fathers have unwittingly set up a system conducive to gender balance. Why not a mandatory quota system? In other words, one female and one male senator from each state? Why is this a good idea?
Because it’s 2018!
Just kidding. There are more compelling reasons than the calendar.
Of course, it would take another Constitutional Amendment (No. 28, if you’re keeping score) to make senatorial gender balance a requirement for each state, but it would make complaints about gender balance in the Senate go away.
Authored by Ron Paul: September marked a decade since the bursting of the housing bubble, which was followed by the stock market meltdown and the government bailout of the big banks and Wall Street. Last week’s frantic stock market sell-off indicates the failure to learn the lesson of 2008 makes another meltdown inevitable.
In 2001-2002 the Federal Reserve responded to the economic downturn caused by the bursting of the technology bubble by pumping money into the economy. This new money ended up in the housing market. This was because the so-called conservative Bush administration, like the “liberal” Clinton administration before it, was using the Community Reinvestment Act and government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make mortgages available to anyone who wanted one — regardless of income or credit history.
By Author Douglas Galbi: Despite the huge financial significance of child support and divorce law, many persons today have sex and get married in ignorance of the wildly inconsistent laws relevant to those actions. The situation was probably better in the Middle Ages. Law regulating sex was then more liberal, and family law was less sex-biased. Moreover, literature like the thirteenth-century Old French work The Little Debate {Le Petit Plet} provided useful education to men about relationships and divorce. Persons considering sex that could produce children or pondering getting married should think carefully about the possibility of undesired change in their relationship. In addition to women being regarded as superior to men in guile, women until the modern age were also thought to be more dynamic and adaptable than men. About two millennia ago, Virgil stated, “a woman is always varying and changing {varium et mutabile semper femina}.”[1] Le Petit Plet dilated upon that commonplace:
A woman resembles a sweetbriar rose
but she behaves like the wind at sea,
now it’s to the west, now it’s to the east,
However much she chatters, just as quickly she goes silent.
: From castration culture in ancient Greek myth to harsh regulation of men’s sexuality in ancient Greece to the Roman culture of trivializing and brutalizing men’s penises, the ancient Greco-Roman world devalued men’s sexuality. Ancient Hebrew culture generally treated men more humanely. Yet the account of Jacob and his wives in Genesis represents Jacob as having dog-like sexuality. Within that context, the deeply learned Jewish Christian Paul of Tarsus proclaimed that men’s sexuality has sacralizing status.
