Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Carnival of Misandry

Well, so many of you are writing in with tips that I figured it was time for another Carnival of Misandry. Thanks to all the readers who sent me links this week, I can't include them all, but I read each one. No reader names will be used so people can discuss freely but if you want your name mentioned, let me know very clearly in your email.

First up comes an article from the Australian, where "a report on family law recommends a change to the legal definition of violence to encompass behaviour that is "economically abusive", threatening or coercive:

The report, by the Family Law Council, says changes made to the Family Law Act (1975) by the Howard government narrowed the definition of violence and was "conservative in its drafting".

The review was one of three reports released this week on family law, one of which warned that women and children were at a greater risk of violence.

The Family Law Council report said the definition of violence in the act was in "some ways reminiscent of the common law definition of assault".

"It is questionable whether it encompasses the debilitating psychological abuse by controlling conduct," the report says.

It argues that the definition of family violence should be amended to encompass behaviour that is not only physically or sexually abusive, but also economically abusive, threatening, coercive, "or in any other way controls or dominates" the other party.


Why not just include the definition of family violence as any person in the family over 5 who dares to have a penis?

Next up is a case about some women in Wisconsin who avoided jail time in a glue-related revenge plot:

Ziemann, a mother of six, acknowledged that she lured the 37-year-old man to a motel last July after the man's wife contacted her and told her he was seeing other women.

First she tied the man up and blindfolded him under the guise of erotic play. Then she summoned the other three women with a text message, according to court documents.

She told police she slapped the man in the face, cut off his underwear and used the glue to attach his penis to his stomach. The other three women arrived, and several berated and belittled the man. Eventually he worked his way out of his restraints and the women fled.


Perhaps it is the judge here who should get the prize for the most misandric of this crew--the women got probation and community service and the judge responded:

The judge acknowledged a possible double-standard with the sentencing. If the incident involved a man who committed similar acts against an unwilling woman, that man would doubtless face prison time, Judge Donald Poppy [my emphasis] said.

But in this case the victim and his "bad behavior" were partly to blame, he said.

The victim "started the ball rolling, philandering with others besides his wife, who was putting bread on the table and taking care of his children," the judge said.


So, the judge admits he's biased against men--that's just plain scary. Men need to take action in Wisconsin and do something about this judge of injustice.

Finally, Glenn Sacks sent me a post about an English professor over at Psychology Today by the name of Regina Barreca, Ph.D who praised Clara Harris, a female dentist who ran over her husband, and killed him. I did a show once on this case and it was horrible. I thought psychologists were against domestic violence but perhaps that's only if a woman gets hurt. If a man dies, that's just deserts. Luckily, Glenn Sacks is on the case and is asking that people sign a petition that lets Psychology Today know how they feel about these misandric statements.

Well, there is plenty more but I am out of space, until next time.

Update: The women only food lines in Haiti also deserves a mention here at the Carnival of Misandry (thanks to the Javelineer).

Labels: ,

58 Comments:

Blogger Francis W. Porretto said...

When you're dealing with a judge who thinks he's a black-robed god, all bets are off. The law will be a trivial side issue. Notions of equity? Forget them. What will matter is how that judge feels at any given instant...and whether your case hits an instant favorable or unfavorable to your cause.

5:05 PM, February 03, 2010  
Blogger slwerner said...

The second story here seems to have left out a key point here:

"Ziemann, a mother of six, acknowledged that she lured the 37-year-old man..."


It should have read:

"Ziemann, a married mother of six, acknowledged that she lured the 37-year-old man who she was cheating on her husband with..."


From Glenn Sacks Guess What? Woman in Wisconsin Glue Case is Married Too"

The "victim" in the case was ridiculed and scorned for HIS adultery, but SHE was given a virtual pass for hers. Par for the course anymore, I suppose.

5:25 PM, February 03, 2010  
Blogger Memphis Steve said...

How is it that the women who glued the man's genitals weren't charged with sexual assault? I man can be charged with sexual assault for merely touching a woman's breast through her shirt yet nothing that these women did qualifies? It's an outrage, but one that will receive no response in the media at all. Jane Mitchell Valez will still be on HLN tonight screaming shrilly "there's a WAR ON WOMEN" even as the war on men continues to roll on, celebrated by women like Regina Barreca without condemnation from anyone in authority.

5:50 PM, February 03, 2010  
Blogger Topher said...

"Ziemann, a mother of six, acknowledged that she lured the 37-year-old man to a motel last July after the man's wife contacted her and told her he was seeing other women."

The one actually funny part of this case is all contained in that sentence.

The woman is OK with cheating on her husband, and turning another woman into a victim of cheating, but SHE gets "cheated on" with _another_ mistress and it's time to glue somebody's dick to something.

Reminds me of an advice column I read where a mistress fretted that she was being "cheated on" by her married man, who a second mistress.

Sorry to say it so bluntly, but this shows all the inherent contradiction, doublethink, petty jealousies and self-justifying behavior of a modern entitled American feminist-bred woman. It's all about HER - not the sisterhood, not her husband and family, just her. She's justified in doing whatever she wants just because she is.

One other thing: I constantly tell women I know who share their revenge fantasies with me that "infidelity is not an act of violence." It's wrong, tacky, grounds for breakup/divorce and everything else, but responding to infidelity with violence is not morally justified. Being "upset" is not grounds to do something to someone else. Those who think otherwise are not living in the modern world of rights to life and liberty that countless people fought so hard for.

(I also remind them that seeking revenge merely cements the fellow's image of you as an out of control child, emotionally needy/attached to him and best left out of his life. Don't give another person that power _or_ satisfaction.)

6:49 PM, February 03, 2010  
Blogger God Of Bacon said...

Anyone dumb enough to go to a hotel room with a strange woman and allow her to tie him up should avoid passing his genes on to the next generation.

He's really, really dumb.

10:30 AM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

Well, I'm not about to say this guy had it coming. No one derserves to be treated in this manner. But I will say he should have known better.

When you play with women, you're playing with fire. Especially in a marriage situation. It's as simple as that.

All the more reason for men to avoid women completely. In this culture, under this legal system, with this marriage contract, given the attitudes of these girls. It's just not worth it.

11:52 AM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Professor Hale said...

The women only food line is a joke. As if Haitian men wouldn't prefer to make their women stand in line and drag those 50 pound rice bags home anyway. Further, men can stand in the line, but they have to have a coupon for food, that they got from a woman (somehow).

12:20 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Mike K said...

Speaking of judges, I know an ER doc who was assigned alimony based on the judge's estimate of what he could make if he really was trying. In the meantime, the ex-wife was living with her boyfriend in the house he was paying for. Naturally she would not marry the boyfriend while the alimony was still coming. True story although it was about 20 years ago. Maybe things have changed. I'm not about to find out.

1:56 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

"I know an ER doc who was assigned alimony based on the judge's estimate of what he could make if he really was trying."

-------

That's called "imputed income" and it's still alive and well.

These men certainly aren't going to be slackers and sit on their butt - they are going to pay Princess every cent they can while SHE sits on her butt.

And the thing about the boyfriend (ALSO paying for her) is a pretty common thing.

I have no idea why men get married.

2:06 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger dclemens said...

After enjoying the Carnival of Misandry, please proceed down the midway to the Academic Funhouse of Misandry:

http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=1161

2:12 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JA Goneaux said...

If you want a good example of misandry (which I just had to add to my browser's dictionary as it wasn't in there already!), look at life expectancy tables.

Although men are closing the gap on women in this regard, there is still a difference of 5+ years in most counties.

Now, if any other demographic were so far behind, do you think there might be a bit more media interest, let alone $?

2:12 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Milwaukee said...

These women should be on a sex registry somewhere. Why didn't the prosecutor file those charges? Is this the same thing as saying that the young woman wearing the miniskirt was raped because "she asked for it"? Clearly, something is very, very wrong.

2:24 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Vader said...

I'd have to characterize the judge's sentence as poppycock.

4:00 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger kmg said...

Don't forget to read about The Misandry Bubble, and how it will pop.

This article covers *everything*.

4:18 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Ern said...

Vader -

Perhaps. You might want to look up the etymology of the word "poppycock".

4:19 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Edgehopper said...

"I know an ER doc who was assigned alimony based on the judge's estimate of what he could make if he really was trying."

-------

That's called "imputed income" and it's still alive and well.

These men certainly aren't going to be slackers and sit on their butt - they are going to pay Princess every cent they can while SHE sits on her butt.


Ah, yes, this is always the case. Except that I know it's not, because a similar situation happened to my father.

He was also an ER doc, and they had agreed in the marriage that she would stay at home and raise me and my sister. This was because of a shared belief in the importance of raising children. 11 years later, he started cheating--and before you get the idea that it was due to "loss of atractiveness" or some other womanly fault...he was cheating with men. Oh, and there was actual domestic abuse--I was there, my sister (then 6 years old) saw it.

After the divorce, he intentionally took lesser paying jobs, trying to lower his financial obligations. The court imputed income to him, and also imputed additional income to my mom (who, being an M.D. out of the work force for 15 years, was essentially unemployable). This was the just result.

This isn't to defend the system generally, but these laws do properly exist for some scenarios. The problem is when judges enforce them unfairly--not that they exist.

4:46 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

Sorry, Edgehopper, if she has an MD she can get back into the work world somehow and work her way up. Just like men had to do. It wouldn't even take that long to be pulling down good money. My own mother, without an MD, was pulling down great money after a fairly short period of time following the divorce.

Your father evidently paid for her the whole time she stayed home. That's some compensation right there.

If they are no longer married, he should not be subsidizing her lifestyle.

I realize that is a point that we fundamentally disagree on, so I think further debate is useless, though.

5:40 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Edgehopper said...

Sorry, Edgehopper, if she has an MD she can get back into the work world somehow and work her way up. Just like men had to do. It wouldn't even take that long to be pulling down good money. My own mother, without an MD, was pulling down great money after a fairly short period of time following the divorce.

Your father evidently paid for her the whole time she stayed home. That's some compensation right there.


Ah, I see. So your view is that people shouldn't be held to their obligations and responsibilities; everyone should do whatever they feel like, and damn the effects on everyone else!

In other words, your view of men's rights is the destructive counterpart to feminism--rather than having any responsibility to uphold their legal obligations, duly agreed to at the time of marriage, men should be free to be just as caddish and irresponsible as feminists want women to be.

What a crappy society that would be, where the party willing to break promises always wins, and the legal system rewards them for it.

5:44 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

"So your view is that people shouldn't be held to their obligations and responsibilities; everyone should do whatever they feel like, and damn the effects on everyone else!"

------

If the marriage is over, it's over. She certainly isn't held to any "responsibilities" to him.

In this case, you paint the man as 100% evil and the woman as 100% victim. Sometimes it's the opposite - should the man also pay and pay and pay then?

And mostly it's a gray area with both at fault. If the marriage is over, it should be over. Not just for the woman.

5:55 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

If you were the family court judge, Edgehopper, are you also going to order the woman to continue the things she did that enticed the man into the marriage?

If not - given that you are big on a continuation of responsibilities after the marriage ends - why not?

And why just make the man continue his obligations?

That sounds pretty one-sided to me.

5:59 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Edgehopper said...

If the marriage is over, it's over. She certainly isn't held to any "responsibilities" to him.

If she were at fault, then she should be (where the woman is cheating, child custody should go to the man; where the woman is cheating and the higher earner, she should pay alimony; where the woman is cheating and the lower earner, she should get nothing). I'm advocating a system where the court sides with the party not at fault.

In this case, you paint the man as 100% evil and the woman as 100% victim. Sometimes it's the opposite - should the man also pay and pay and pay then?

No. Where it's the opposite, the man should pay nothing, and get custody of the children.

And mostly it's a gray area with both at fault. If the marriage is over, it should be over. Not just for the woman.

If the parties can agree to a settlement, I see no reason to intervene. Otherwise, there is some party breaching the marriage agreement.

Why should a marriage contract be less enforceable than a business contract? Much more is at stake in the marriage contract than in, say, my limited warranty on my laptop computer.

6:00 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

Men get fired all the time and have to pick themselves up, brush themselves off and work their way back up from zero.

All the time.

I'm sure some men on this board had to do it.

So if you don't think women can also do that, I find that an extremely sexist attitude.

6:01 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

"I'm advocating a system where the court sides with the party not at fault."

-------

Today we have no-fault divorce.

It is unfair to men to have a modern view of marriage and divorce when it benefits the woman (no-fault divorce) and to have a traditional view of marriage and divorce when THAT benefits the woman (i.e. alimony and the like is still ordered today).

Pick one and stick with it. If you have no-fault divorce, the woman should not get alimony or an asset distribution above and beyond what she earned herself.

If society goes back to a fault-divorce situation, I'd be a little more open to holding people to their obligations - because then the woman also has REAL obligations. Under no-fault, she has NO real obligation at all to the man.

6:04 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Edgehopper said...

If you were the family court judge, Edgehopper, are you also going to order the woman to continue the things she did that enticed the man into the marriage?

Of course not.

1. "Things done to entice" a person into a contract aren't enforceable, short of fraud, and we don't enforce fraud in the marital context either way in most cases.

2. We enforce responsibilities, and where those responsibilities are personal in nature, we come up with a financial penalty in place of specific performance.

With those caveats, yes, where the woman breaches the marital contract, she should have to pay the according penalty for the breach.

6:05 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

"... she should have to pay the according penalty for the breach."

-----

And then you're back to "fault" divorce. See my comments above.

6:07 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Edgehopper said...

So if you don't think women can also do that, I find that an extremely sexist attitude.

Can they? Certainly. But when a man is fired in breach of his employment agreement, we don't expect the company to get away free. NBC can't just fire Conan O'Brien prematurely from a long term contract, pay him nothing, walk away, and expect Conan and the other Tonight Show employees to "pick themselves up". They have to pay for breaking the agreement.

6:09 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Edgehopper said...

It is unfair to men to have a modern view of marriage and divorce when it benefits the woman (no-fault divorce) and to have a traditional view of marriage and divorce when THAT benefits the woman (i.e. alimony and the like is still ordered today).

Agreed. I would go back to a full "fault" divorce system, in case that wasn't clear. Absent that, there's room for a limited "fault" divorce system where proof of real fault, such as abuse or adultery, would result in the appropriate consequences.

6:12 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6:12 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Edgehopper said...

But family law certainly isn't contract law.

In the current legal climate, yes. But it should be, and traditionally, it was.

6:15 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

And by "things she did that enticed the man into marriage", I meant the quid pro quo that he expected for him to enter into the marriage (probably sex if he was young and stupid).

The reality is that it was all illusory - she had no obligations to him at all. Since you are starting to talk a bit about contract law - which marriage ISN'T - then you could say the agreement (marriage) would be void under contract law for lack of "consideration" (I mean that word in the legal sense).

But family law certainly isn't contract law. It's the man taking on a one-sided obligation for whatever reason. I never understood why myself.

6:15 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

Note: I deleted the comment just before Edgehopper's and replaced it with the comment above.

I only changed the inflammatory word "babble" to the less inflammatory word "talk".

6:16 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

I've seen lots of unfair situations under the guise of "holding men to their responsibilities".

A woman living with her new rich boyfriend in a big house, with the new boyfriend paying lots for her, and the ex-husband living in a lot smaller place paying over lots in alimony to the wife.

That's simply not fair.

I've seen men with 50% custody - including 50% real physical custody, sometimes more if the woman is jetting off with the new boyfriend - and the man paying a huge amount of child support to the woman.

That's not fair.

I think women are more than protected today. If there is no-fault divorce and they can leave anytime they want - they may have to work and sweat and build up a good job - just like men had to do. I have no protective instinct left in me for women. They should be treated equally - as equal human beings - and that is friggin' it.

6:21 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

And I am getting more and more disgust over the years with women who milk the system and use men.

I'm not saying all women are like that, I'm just saying I detest the ones who ARE like that.

6:23 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Edgehopper said...

JG-

I agree with you that the system badly mistreats most men. But there are some who deserve everything the court throws at them, and more besides. Cads like Tiger Woods, John Edwards, and Mark Sanford, for example.

What I've seen isn't that the court is biased 100% in favor of women, but in favor of 75-25 outcomes towards women. When the sides are even, this screws over men. When women are at fault, this truly screws over men. But when men are at fault, this actually screws over women.

For example, courts will ordinarily favor the woman, usually with joint custody where she's the primary custodial parent, and in extreme cases, full custody. They also won't link visitation with child support, which is a travesty (i.e., if the mom refuses to allow visitation, the dad will still have to pay.) However, the court will bend over backwards to give visitation to even a cheating, abusive father.

The current system, where the court mechanically imposes a favorable but not total judgment for the woman, is the worst of both worlds--unfair to men and always better for the guilty party than the proper result. Mechanically imposing even decisions is an improvement, but I still don't think it's ideal.

6:57 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger kmg said...

The good news is, the costs of misandry, which have been borne by men so far, are now being transferred onto women.

7:05 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Jeff Stevenson said...

In that case expect the laws to soon change.

8:03 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Target said...

I've seen women laughing behind the back of "chivalrous men" because they were such easy marks.

I've seen wives who could barely suppress a little grin when their husbands emphasize in a public setting or speech that they are "richly blessed" - because the wife is sleeping with another guy on the side.

Lots of women play the victim role when it suits them and men eat it up.

----

I hate to say it - but men who are idiots probably deserve what they eventually get. Men who are trying to "play the role", who bully men (when they can get away with it) and put women up on a pedestal in a fake way, men who are acting out of a need to bolster their own ego with their chivalrist crap - deserve what they get.

8:23 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Target said...

Some men have a sudden event after 30 years or more of marriage that throws their whole world view into doubt.

They were the "richly blessed" Patriarch after all those years, and the wife played the role. She played the role because it beat working. Stupid paid for her.

But it was a role because it wasn't what she really thought - or the way she really acted when Stupid didn't see what was going on.

If your whole world view crumbles in a divorce action after decades - and that actually happens quite a bit - then maybe your better-than-thou, chivalrous, pushy attitude wasn't right from the start.

8:28 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Cham said...

Young men often force way in front of food lines and steal from others. Although if relief workers don't allow access to food to Haitian women and children they might starve to death, and some people wouldn't mind that at all. Go men!

8:32 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

Cham, guess who's enforcing the food being given as a preference to women?

That's right - men.

If men weren't protecting women on the whole, believe me, women wouldn't have one morsel of food.

So I guess they're not all worthy of your shame.

8:38 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Milwaukee said...

Chem:
Young men forcing their way into the front of the line is reprehensible. But other than you don't like men, as a group, what does that have to do with the original post? And yes, it is other men, with guns, who will force order.

Why weren't the women in Wisconsin who sexually assaulted that man charged with sexual assault, and put on a sex offenders registry? Or do you believe he "had it coming to him" and he "got what he deserved"?

9:12 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Laughingdog said...

"The majority of divorces are initiated by women, not by men, and research shows that women's decision to divorce often catches their husbands by surprise." - from the Glenn Sacks post.

I'm twice divorced, and that pretty much sums up both of them.

12:52 AM, February 05, 2010  
Blogger Omnibus Driver said...

You left out Jessica Kathleen Alexander, 18, and Tammy Nicole Ortega, 29, who traded sex for cigarettes and then cried rape.

It almost makes me ashamed I have ovaries.

1:04 AM, February 05, 2010  
Blogger Micha Elyi said...

"The real question, though, would be to ask how compliant with a court order would women be if that order said, 'Custody of the children will go to the father. You may visit from time to time. Yet, you will continue to fulfill the traditional female role by going over to your ex-husband and children's house three times a week and cooking, cleaning and shopping for them. And you must leave before the kids come home and you will see the kids only when the husband says it is okay. You owe it to your children.' " -Jack Kammer, Good Will Toward Men St. Martin's Press (1994) print-on-demand edition available here.

3:41 AM, February 05, 2010  
Blogger Micha Elyi said...

Australia's leftist government "argues that the definition of family violence should be amended to encompass behaviour that is not only physically or sexually abusive, but also economically abusive, threatening, coercive, 'or in any other way controls or dominates" the other party.' "

I can see the Howard government's latest feminist brainwave becoming the bane of women throughout Australia. Pressurizing the husband to be the primary breadwinner is oh so obviously an attempt to control or dominate the husband in an "economically abusive, threatening, (or) coercive" way.

The fashionably leftist's sexist belief that only women can be victims blinds them to the injustices typically foisted upon men by so many women.

3:51 AM, February 05, 2010  
Blogger Topher said...

Omnibus,

Welcome - we discussed that sex-for-ciggies case at length earlier this week, check Helen's earlier posts for extended commentary.

8:22 AM, February 05, 2010  
Blogger TMink said...

"holding men to their responsibilities".

I have heard this phrase often, but I have never heard the phrase "holding women to their responsibilities." Never.

What are these manly and womanly responsibilities? If a man is responsible for keeping up the lifestyle of his x wife, shouldn't she be held to her womanly responsibilities? If he has to pay, should she have to provide sex? What about her "womanly responsibilities?"

Trey

12:22 PM, February 05, 2010  
Blogger JG said...

"If a man is responsible for keeping up the lifestyle of his x wife, shouldn't she be held to her womanly responsibilities?"

-------

Women have rights and men have responsibilities.

Apparently.

12:31 PM, February 05, 2010  
Blogger Joe said...

What TMink and JG referred is probably the single biggest stress point for me in my marriage. In the church I went to until ten years ago, men were constantly being told how they needed to honor their wives, but very little was said in reverse.

Above all they never said, "Hey women, try being passionate with your husbands more than you like."

5:50 PM, February 05, 2010  
Blogger Jason said...

A man who doesn't sexually satisfy his wife is a cad; a woman who doesn't sexually satisfy her husband is honorable, even holy.

5:51 PM, February 05, 2010  
Blogger Joe said...

I was reading the story on the food lines in Haiti and it made me wonder what the effect is going to be on demasculating the men. In this isolated circumstance, I'm sure the effect is short lived, but isn't this what has happened with welfare in the US, England and many other places?

5:58 PM, February 05, 2010  
Blogger jimbino said...

I think the OP meant to say, "... that's just deserts." Unless she meant that the man is fit to be eaten!

12:35 PM, February 06, 2010  
Blogger jimbino said...

On second thought, if the man is properly "battered" he might be good as "dessert."

12:37 PM, February 06, 2010  
Blogger Jim said...

Thanks for caring about us guys Dr. Helen!

I appreciate it!

12:55 AM, February 07, 2010  
Blogger ismi_nomatter said...

Judge Donald Poppy has, simply, just affirmed all the men who ever said that 'the woman was dressed provocatively' (and other such defenses). His bad behavior? OK, so there's a new precedence...

10:33 AM, February 07, 2010  
Blogger pduggie said...

I think the "women only" food lines might be justified, because 'minandry" in Haiti seems justified. The strong take from the weak.

See this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cb_haiti_earthquake

2:16 PM, February 07, 2010  
Blogger Helen said...

jimbino,

Both seem to apply, but thanks for pointing out the mistake.

7:19 AM, February 08, 2010  
Blogger Cindy said...

I blogged about the UN/WFP thing here: http://getalonghome.com/2010/02/discrimination-in-haiti-relief-efforts/

I could use some supportive comments, if you have a minute. I know my mostly female commenters are going to eat me alive, if they comment at all!

9:12 PM, February 09, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home