Andy Nowicki joins Richard Spencer to discuss the Chick-Fil-A controversy, the evolution of the gay-marriage debate, and Batman, too.
Worldwide, every three seconds a girl under the age of 18 is married.
In India, 90% of these marriages are arranged between families.
And with a divorce rate of just above 1% proponents argue arranged marriage is an effective way for young people to find a partner.
But what happens when a proposed marriage goes awry?
CNN’s Sumnima Udas looks at the pros and cons of arranged marriage.
RICHMOND, Va (WTVR)- This Chick-fil-A thing is oh-so simple if you believe in the Constitution.
The firm’s president has every right to voice his opinion on gay marriage.
Those who disagree have every right to not eat there and encourage others to join them.
Those politicians or university leaders who want to punish the company by denying or repealing its business licenses are grandstanding idiots.
Unless someone can prove Chick-Fil-A discriminates in its hiring and treatment of its employees, or against its customers, any city or university discriminating against them would be in trouble.
UPDATE: Seems like quite a few chicken-loving, same-sex marriage foes turned out for Wednesday’s Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.
Based on reports from around the country, many Chick-fil-As had lines out the door come lunchtime. Attendees emphasized a mix of support for the company’s stance against equal marriage rights and for what’s being billed as an underlying free speech issue in the initial backlash against the fast food chain’s officially outed politics. Mayors in a handful of cities, including Boston and Chicago, responded to CEO Dan Cathy’s recent remarks on his “Biblical” view of marriage by insinuating that the chain was not welcome within city limits.
The transition between bans 3 and 4 smashes it!
Volunteered, by Aaron Kinney, to The Radical Libertarian
Of the various manifestations of the egalitarian cultural revolution that has transpired in the Western world over the past half century, none have been quite so enduring or become so deeply rooted in the culture of modern society as the so-called “sexual revolution.” Indeed, it might well be argued that even the supposed commitment of Western cultural elites in the early twenty-first century to the ethos of racial egalitarianism is not quite as profound as their commitment to the preservation and expansion of the victories of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution itself brings with it many of its own manifestations. These include the now prevailing feminist ethos, the liberalization of both popular opinion and public legislation concerning sexual conduct, abortion and contraception, divorce, the normalization of homosexuality accompanied by the growth of powerful homosexual political interest groups, and the identification of an ever-growing list of “gender identity” or “sexual orientation” groups who are subsequently assigned their position in the Left’s pantheon of the oppressed.
Of course, the ongoing institutionalization of the values of the sexual revolution is not without its fierce critics. Predictably, the most strident criticism of sexual liberalism originates from the clerical and political representatives of the institutions of organized Christianity and from concerned Christian laypeople. Public battles over sexual issues are depicted in the establishment media as conflicts between progressive-minded, intelligent and educated liberals versus ignorant, bigoted, sex-phobic reactionaries. Dissident conservative media outlets portray conflicts of this type as pitting hedonistic, amoral sexual libertines against beleaguered upholders of the values of faith, family, and chastity. Yet this “culture war” between liberal libertines and Christian puritans is not what should be the greatest concern of those holding a radical traditionalist or conservative revolutionary outlook.
Interesting description of the current sexual marketplace as an artificial market. All those guys you know who screw a lot of women are Omega’s exploiting a niche produced by feminism and urban anonymity. In a tribal society these sort of guys would be killed or expelled by an alliance of alphas and betas; if they could manage to get laid in the first place…. More…
The hoarsely ululating throats of the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” movements screamed at each other outside a small abortion clinic in Jackson, Mississippi last week as a federal judge cock-blocked a state lawand allowed the clinic to stay open for now. The law would have effectively shut down the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which is Mississippi’s last remaining abortion clinic.
Few political issues are as supercharged with moral hysteria as abortion. What’s moral, as always, is in the eye of the moralizer. Outside the clinic and in the comments section of every online news story about the case, there were the requisite dueling accusations of moral turpitude and hypocrisy, of which side values basic human dignity and which doesn’t. The pro-lifers spoke of a legal holocaust of unborn fetuses while the pro-choicers bemoaned state-sanctioned reproductive slavery.
One side warned of bloody coat hangers from back-alley abortions, while the other toted garish picket signs of legally aborted shredded embryos. And all of it was a relentlessly bloody power struggle for the moral upper hand: On one extreme you have those who believe one drop of spilled male semen is an abomination before the Lord, while on the other were the super-empowered mega-sluts who instead choose to sacralize their “sexuality” and blithely eject unwanted fetuses from their wombs with the regularity of old toasters disgorging the morning’s burnt toast.
Luna @ A Hopeful Pessimist on truants, prozzies, paternalism, and Social Darwinism.
Well, I’m back again. I didn’t intend to take this long to write again, but due to technological troubles, I was offline for awhile, thus making it impossible to post more entries. This is not ideal because my lead in story in this post is now somewhat older news. Anyhow, what I hope to do in this entry is combine several possible posts that I have been planning to do in the past, so hopefully, despite my lack on consistency in writing here, I will partially make it up by killing several birds with one stone, so to speak.
Okay, I want to start this post with a story I originally came across on attackthesystem.com, about an incident in Montgomery County in the grand old State of Texas, where a 17-year-old high-school student by the name of Diane Tran was sentenced to a day in jail and a fine for contempt of court (I believe) because of missing too many days of school. This despite the fact that the student in question was working two jobs to support her siblings because of her parents splitting up, and despite missing some classes over being extremely tired from that out-of-school work (Who wouldn’t be?), she apparently managed to make the honour roll. Anyhow this story became viral and spread around the world, prompting outrage and leading to some donation campaign set up specifically for Tran, with a website set up for that purpose. Anyhow, what eventually happened was that the charges were dropped, with Mr. Judge Moriarty backing down from his hard-line stance to some extent. Anyways, if you are curious about this story, there are more articles here, and probably even more if you care to search for them on the net. Now when I came across this story, I was immediately interested because I had read some articles about a county in Texas with a Judge who was well known for incarcerating students who were chronic truants from school, and I had planned to write a blog post about two articles about this 1, 2.More…
AFP Photo/Getty Images
Swinging sex parties are slowing finding a place among Saudi Arabia`s foreign residents and elite. One foreign couple gave a sneak peak into their private lives that could cost them their freedom or more in the conservative Islamic kingdom.
The couple, living in the capital Riyadh, says they organize so-called “wife-swapping” parties once a month with up to five couples participating.
“It is something we do and we are not ashamed of it,” said Tara, who asked that her full name not to be disclosed. Partner swapping is the best way “to find out more about ourselves sexually,” she argues.
OAKLAND, Calif. (KGO) — Police are keeping close watch on the Oakland Convention Center. Wednesday afternoon, anarchist demonstrators clashed with officers when they were denied entrance to a conference on human trafficking.
Demonstrators, calling themselves “Occupy Patriarchy” gathered outside the convention center to protest the conference happening inside, but it wasn’t long before it was clear that demonstrators behind the “FTP” rallies had a different agenda.
An interview we were conducting was interrupted by protestors using bullhorns to blast us down repeatedly, accusing us of being part of a larger conspiracy to assist police.
Inside, more than 430 registered guest and 70 presenters were meeting to discuss ways to end human trafficking and the exploitation of children. A crime, organizers say, that is on the rise and the victims even younger.
“The average is now, what we’re looking at about 13 years old, but we do have some kids who have come in as young as 11,” said Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley.
But protesters were not there to listen, they were there to demonstrate. They knocked down police barriers and vandalized the doors of the conference center. They say that to focus on this is to distort their message. They say that this conference is just a launching pad for continued repression of sex workers and the further empowerment of police agencies at their expense.
“What we’re saying is that if you really want to help these people, this is not the way to do it,” said demonstrator Catilin Manning. “If you really want to help these people figure out where the traffickers are coming in. Maybe you should police the port.”
The HEAT (Human Exploitation and Trafficking) campaign has had success. In Alameda County since 2011 there have been more than 250 prosecutions and 180 successful convictions.
The conference runs through Friday, and anarchists have promised to return.
James Joyner on the rapecage-industrial complex.
From Outside the Beltway.
Christopher Glazer takes to N+1 magazine to argue that we should Raise the Crime Rate.
Statistics are notoriously slippery, but the figures that suggest that violence has been disappearing in the United States contain a blind spot so large that to cite them uncritically, as the major papers do, is to collude in an epic con. Uncounted in the official tallies are the hundreds of thousands of crimes that take place in the country’s prison system, a vast and growing residential network whose forsaken tenants increasingly bear the brunt of America’s propensity for anger and violence.
Crime has not fallen in the United States—it’s been shifted. Just as Wall Street connived with regulators to transfer financial risk from spendthrift banks to careless home buyers, so have federal, state, and local legislatures succeeded in rerouting criminal risk away from urban centers and concentrating it in a proliferating web of hyperhells. The statistics touting the country’s crime-reduction miracle, when juxtaposed with those documenting the quantity of rape and assault that takes place each year within the correctional system, are exposed as not merely a lie, or even a damn lie—but as the single most shameful lie in American life.
From 1980 to 2007, the number of prisoners held in the United States quadrupled to 2.3 million, with an additional 5 million on probation or parole.
Swedish courts in sensible verdict shocker!
Read all about it at The Local.
i just received a letter yesterday from a fellow swede saying “…his ex tried to get him convicted for sexual abuse of their child so she would get full custody, but when that didn’t work out, she tried to convict him for having child pornography…” – an interesting detail not mentioned in any english report on the case i’ve read
Japanese manga comics depicting children in sexual poses are not child pornography, Sweden’s Supreme Court has ruled, overturning a high-profile conviction of a Swedish translator.
In a ruling issued on Friday, the court acquitted Simon Lundström, who had been found guilty of child pornography crimes by two lower courts before appealing his case to Sweden’s highest court.
“I’m obviously very relieved, in part because it makes life easier for me personally, but most of all I’m generally relieved for Sweden as a whole,” Lundström told the TT news agency in an email.
“It would have been very hard for me to relate to Sweden as a country if it turned out to be a place that prohibited certain expressions of the imagination.”
According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the drawings are pornographic and they do portray children.
However, because the cartoons represent imaginary figures there is no way they could be mistaken for real children.
“The criminalization of possession of the drawings would otherwise exceed what is necessary with regard to the purpose which has led to the restriction on freedom of expression and freedom of information,” the court said in a statement.
Lundström, described by Swedish media as a top manga expert, was found guilty by two lower courts of having 39 drawings portraying figures in sexual poses stored on the hard drive of his computer.
In his initial trial, he explained that he had retrieved the pictures in order to stay up to date with the latest developments in the Japanese comic genre.
A district court fined him 25,000 kronor ($3,500) but an appeals court lowered the sum to 5,600 kronor.
During the Supreme Court trial, the images were shown on large screens in the courtroom. The pastel-coloured pictures showed children in different states of undress.
From the New Statesman.
Might be a worthy read for those interested in modern men’s issues.
Anyone who has ever debated male-specific gender issues will probably have experienced an encounter like this:
Bloke: “Yeah, but men can also be victims of violence and injustice, why aren’t we talking about that too?”
Feminist: “Of course they can, and if you guys want to campaign on those issues, I’ll applaud you.”
In practice, it doesn’t always work out like that. This month, moral philosopher David Benatar published his book The Second Sexism to an excitable flurry of comment. Before discussing what Benatar says, let’s be quite clear about what he does not.
Despite what you’ve probably read in the Observer, the Guardian, the Independent or even here in the New Statesman, Benatar is not a Backlash merchant. He does not argue that men have a worse time than women; that feminism has gone too far; that men are now the oppressed sex; or that sexism against women does not exist. On the contrary, he repeatedly details the many forms of injustice faced by women across the world, and applauds efforts to address them. Indeed the clue is in the title: not “The New Sexism” or “The True Sexism” but “The Second Sexism.” Second, meaning in addition or secondary to the first sexism which is, of course, against women. Benatar does not blame feminism for anti-male discrimination, rightly noting that most such injustices long predate the women’s movement.
He certainly doesn’t suggest positive discrimination, instead devoting an entire chapter to arguing that such policies are unethical and ineffective as a response to any form of sexism. Perhaps the chapter title “Affirmative Action” may have confused any critics who only read as far as the contents page.
Nor, BBC Online readers, is Benatar a champion of the Men’s Rights Movement. In the book he notes astutely that men’s groups can become “fora for self-pity and for ventilating hyperbolic views that are not checked or moderated by alternative opinions.”
Benatar’s actual argument is that, in most societies, men and boys face several specific and serious forms of wrongful discrimination, and that these are not only injustices in their own right, but also contribute to discrimination against women. The issues he highlights include military conscription and combat exclusions; male circumcision; corporal punishment, victimisation in violence and sexual assault, and discrimination in family and relationship disputes.
During his sophomore year in high school, Cody Beck finally got fed up with hearing homophobic cracks. If his classmates thought being gay was weird (Beck was openly bisexual), he had a confession that would blow their minds. He told them he is sexually attracted to dogs and horses.
“I just couldn’t keep it in anymore,” Beck says. “Just for the hell of it, I figured I’d throw it out there and have them make fun of me even more.” Which they did. An 18-year-old from Arizona who graduated from high school this past year, Beck says classmates taunted him by calling him “Bestiality Dude.”
Being a “zoophile” in modern American society, Beck says, is “like being gay in the 1950s. You feel like you have to hide, that if you say it out loud, people will look at you like a freak.”
The cloyingly named “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act” (HR3541) failed in the House on Thursday, despite gaining overwhelming Republican support. If passed, the bill would have outlawed racial and sexual discrimination in abortion, jailing any doctor who helped a woman end a pregnancy because the fetus was a girl or a minority.
For some, the bill called up fears of the mean, ol’ “far Right”: Republicans who seek to take away women’s rights and send them all, humiliated and barefoot, back to the kitchen—and perhaps establish a national weekend curfew of 9:30PM and confiscate everyone’s iPods while they’re at it.
More astute observers perceived the bill as an attempt by the Religious Right to, subserviently, boost the electoral prospects of Mitt Romney. Now, conservatives dream, the specter of “sex-selection abortion” can be spun as “The Real War on Women.” (Rush Limbaugh—along with, no doubt, the entire Red State echo-chamber—has already picked up on the meme.)
Thursday’s political stunt certainly clarifies the utter uselessness of the American Right; more important for our purposes, it reveals the ways in which both the mainstream Right and Left are beholden to the same egalitarian ur-ideology.
By Owen Bowcott
By a majority of five to two, the justices decided that a public prosecutor was “judicial authority” and that therefore his arrest warrant had been lawfully issued.
But lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder submitted an urgent request to the supreme court asking for permission to challenge one of the points made in the judgment.
Assange, who is facing charges of sexual assault and rape, was not in court. There was no legal requirement for him to be present. According to his solicitor, Gareth Peirce, he was stuck in traffic.
The court granted Assange’s lawyers 14 days to present their arguments that crucial issues related to Article 31 of the Vienna convention, on which the majority of the justices based their decision, were not raised during the hearing.