I bloody love this video

Can’t get enough of it. Anarcha-Feminists ROCK!

This is the video they showed at the Anarchy Conference 2009

The ending brings tears of hope to my eyes every time.

Advertisements

45 thoughts on “I bloody love this video

  1. All females, no matter what their stripe, need to be aware that in joining any male movement (like socialism etc) that males will always relegate the females to making cups of tea. Males dominate every movement except feminism.

    • Aye, that they do.

      Female oppression is the prototype for all other oppressions, the model upon which racial and class oppression is based. It is the original oppression, *justifying* all other types of oppression. If a man, or culture, can oppress women, then it’s only a small step from that to oppressing other types of “inferior” men. The subordination of women is the root of all evil.

      Men’s revolutions are not revolutions at all. Just redistributions of male power.
      THe left attracts women because it stands for the abolishment of hierarchies. BUt, as Soviet Women learned, what it actually stands for is the abolishment of hierarchies between men, while society remains as dependant on women’s free or cheap labour as ever.

      I remember Dworkin writing about how she met her husband at a left-wing rally and how they both left in disgust at the woman-hating exhibited by the speakers. Their feet hit the pavement at exactly the same time. If I wasn’t such a cynic, I’d find it quite romantic.

      • Men’s revolutions are not revolutions at all. Just redistributions of male power.

        Brilliant. That’s it in a nutshell.

        Women joining all these men’s revolutions keep deluding themselves that “this revolution will be different, we won’t get stiffed like previous times, the menz said so…”

        Just ask the women in Egypt in March 2011.
        The ink was barely dry on the general protest posters, before the “get back into the kitchen” kicked in.

  2. I think that these male movements are pale imitations of things women already know. Women understand non-hierarchical social organization at a deep level. Women are naturally non-hierarchical, the hierarchy is an overlay. Because women know this at a level beyond words, they assume men know it, too. They are sadly mistaken in that.

    Women also understand, at a much deeper level than men, what it means to be connected to the natural world. Things like the male environmental movement, are pale imitations of what women already know. Again, women assume that men are in the same place. But for men as a class, it is only about power, their brains are hopped up on testosterone and they miss the fine points.

    This is why the LGBT movement can never work, same reason. Women’s sexuality is so much different than male sexuality. For men it is about power, for women, it is about connection. I’m not saying their are never exceptions. There may or may not be exceptions, or partial exceptions. Dworkin’s husband was gay, and possibly an exception, my guess is a partial exception.

    I think that women do not understand that males are like they are, raised with entitlement, and with many of them OD’ed on testosterone. For the exceptions, it only partially takes, but then they are still raised with entitlement. The reason that women join these movements is
    1. Desperation because they want things to change and see how destructive of life the present system is.
    2. Think men are like them, connected to others, to nature, able to function in non-hierarchies, able to see and care about the “good of the whole” in real terms and not just as an abstraction.
    3. Men lie about how they are.
    4. Women are socialized to take care of men, others, the world.
    5., etc.

    Only real (radical) feminism can provide a foundation for any other movement. Men must be willing to voluntarily give the power they have stolen to women, in real and lasting ways.

    Only recently have I begun to understand this. I wasted my time and resources in working for the environment, etc. All male controlled. It can never work. At this time I see no other solution than separatism and building a strong feminist movement that is the foundation of change. I will admit, I don’t know how to do this at all. But I do know it is required if the planet is to be saved. The b.s. that says that the earth will survive is not so. Males and their systems are destroying it perhaps past the point of no return. (Not “we” are destroying it. Women are not doing that)

    • That was an excellent post, KatieS.
      This year I’ve grown increasingly aware of this particular point you made:

      “Things like the male environmental movement, are pale imitations of what women already know. Again, women assume that men are in the same place”

      Men are not on the same place at all. I had to listen to this bore/boor of a man at a barbeque a few months ago giving a long-winded analysis about how, after going to a conference on the subject, he had come to the conclusion that whale hunting was probably not a good thing. The other men in the room reacted to his talk as though he was a wize prophet, a font of deep wisdom.
      THis was me: 😯

  3. I should say, not “perhaps” the point of no return. What I meant is that males ARE destroying it past the point of no return, if that point has not already been reached.

  4. Although I am really unsure of what and who I am – I on occasions use the label anarcha-feminist, but less since I have give anti-prostitution talks to anarcha- feminist conferences, and had some of the most offensive comments I have ever heard.
    Many anarchists whether men or women believe it is just work – and as they label all work as slavery – they question why women like me moan about the condition – it has said to my face well it better than working in a supermarket.
    To be honest, I find this attitude deeply privileged and very snobbish. I try to say that I in every speech i make have never and would never class prostitution as “work” – but it is an issue of human rights.

    But in my experience many anarchists are from privileged backgrounds, often students and tend to get their attitudes of the sex trade from academics and queer politics – therefore think it is trendy to back unions and to see it as chosen work. Of there are women in the anarchist movement that have more maturity than that, and will actually listen to the voices of exited women, will see the sex trade as exploitation and see demand as the problem.

    But too often the loudest voices in the anarchist movement ignore all the violence and degradation that is the sex trade. They will it will fine if prostitution is made to be indoors, and often speak of the fantasy that it will be brothels run by prostitutes as some kind of co-operative. This is highly unlikely to happen, and if it exists it usually just a cover for female pimps.

    I find the anarchist movement is about men keeping their porn and access to prostitutes and other aspects of the sex trade – and too many anarchist back this.
    This is very depressing.

    • Hi rmott,

      Prostitution is a human rights issue, absolutely. I was just talking about the difference between human rights and civil rights on another thread. As far as I understand it, the concept of hUman rights is connected to breaching bodily autonomy (torture, for example) and what prostitutes experience falls well inside that definition. Civil rights is more connected to society (segregation based on race/sex etc).

      “But in my experience many anarchists are from privileged backgrounds,”
      This is very interesting. I never imagined an anarchist conference being full of “champagne socialists”, but now that you mention it, rich kids are probably the only ones who feel safe enough to support an anarchist movement!

      A lot of women voted for Nick Clegg and the lib dems during the last election, thinking the word “liberal” stood for freedom. Or something.
      Turns out the liberal democracts are the most misogynistic party that’s ever been in power. I would even go so far as to say that the conservatives are better for women, because at least they don’t support the sex industry, albeit for the wrong reasons. I think it was the Libdems behind that anonymity for rape victims law that the Condems were trying to pass.

  5. The Idea getting doesn’t stop at academics and queer politics, because THEY get those ideas from men.

    Let’s stop blaming the women academics, who were the first of their sex to get into academia. Then they hit the tenure ceiling fast, the one that pretty much keeps them at sessional lecturer status, but doesn’t even exist for male academics no matter what politics they espouse (they’re all the same no matter right or left). The few women who do get let in are fun fems, with the token lesbian to round out their hypocrisy. Then the rest of the “female” ranks are filled with trans.

    I agree with most of what the feminist anarchists have to say. Have done forever. Won’t mask up. Won’t be told how to protest by the Marxists, won’t stand with the Queers.

    Do you know, in most Canadian cities (don’t know if this is the same everywhere) they live in privileged neighbourhoods next to campuses, which they got into with 4 % locked in mortages under funded by the university. Here, you can go into those communities as I sometimes do, knowing one or two, and there is NOT one Canadian household in the bunch. They are all American, or German, or some other, all tenured for over 25 years, all own leisure homes in the mountains ($3 million to get a crappy wrong way facing one-bedroom condo) and all make sure their kids have dual citizenship and go back to der faderland for their educations.

    Not exactly a tangent, because the Canadian women with PhDs stay year after year after year after year as sessional lecturers, never getting tenure, never knowing if their contract will be renewed.

    They won’t. As soon as those women hit about 40, they know they’re going nowhere. Even in women’s studies, the tenured will be men, and more men, in lippy.

    • myrtle, I have to disagree with you about academics there.

      First, I’ll say that there is a distinction between Academic feminists and women in academia. Some women in other departments of academia are feminists and try to bring radical feminism into the classroom.

      But academic feminists have done a lot of damage to feminism. It’s not a case of being unable to move forward because of structural obstacles. It’s a case of women who should know better selling out. I say, “should know better” because we’re talking about women who have had access to real education, who have the tools to educate themselves. And instead they sell out– in their work and real life.

      Many academic feminists seem to have forgotten that feminism is a political movement, above all. Shit, some of the writings that have come from academic feminists, the post-modernism, the “sex work is empowerment” trope, the BDSM is empowerment trope, has damaged the feminist movement and put it back twenty years. In that respect, it would honestly have been better if academic feminism didn’t exist. They’re teaching young women utter shit.

      It’s a smack in the face to the women who fought for women to go to universities. Changing women’s studies to Gender Studies! To be fair that was not the fault of the women, but the fault of the old grey-heads in power, but academic feminists should *see* what’s going on and should shine a light on it. INstead most of them have their heads in the sand.

      As for trans women in women’s studies, or gender studies. It makes me spitting mad. Greer resigned over a man in a dress taking a tenure reserved for women in Cambridge.

  6. KatieS, you say “Men must be willing to voluntarily give the power they have stolen to women, in real and lasting ways”.

    Will they do this? Why would they, and how can we convince them to?

    Rmott, thank you for your thoughts. The anarchists you’ve spoken to saying that prostitution is better than working at a checkout stand are clearly very ignorant.

    CBL, I like your description of the boor/bore at the barbecue making obvious points. Gee, ya think?! Thanks for this post. I love the women at the end.

  7. Smash, I don’t think they will do this, but the only way I’d ever participate with them as anarchists or environmentalists is if they did. The way to go is (radical) feminist separatism as far as I can see. If anyone says, “you are excluding the menz,” I can say, “no, they are excluding themselves.” It cannot work any other way than women taking full power. Men have so much to learn, but they never understand that.

    CBL, yes, your description of the barbeque boor is all too familiar. They don’t know what they don’t know, and will never listen if a woman talks about it. This is why it is a mistake to let them into leadership of any kind.

    Years ago I worked in a department with all women and one man. There had been a male boss, but then a woman got the job. The women ran the department and it ran well, actually, really, really well. We used to note that the one man was always playing the “job role.” In other words, he did not do much meaningful work, but was always trying to look important in his role. He had a number of behaviors designed to fit the role. Because the rest of us were actually doing things that made sense, he stood out like a sore thumb. We were not a mean-spirited bunch, but we did laugh about it a lot because it was just so obvious and so dumb. He didn’t last long once the male boss was replaced by a woman who understood the score. He was not fired, but rather looked for and found a job with another male boss.

    Rebecca and Myrtle, I don’t consider academic feminists to be real feminists in any way, shape or form. This is co-opting of the name “feminist” and it loses all meaning of what feminism is. I consider the academic feminists to be people like Mary Daly. She had 3 PhD degrees and got each of them when only men were allowed to get them. She is now considered a radical feminist. I don’t like the term “radical feminist” because that’s like calling females-at-birth cis-women. It means you are trying to steal the name and apply it to something you are not. Don’t get me wrong, I still use the term “radical”, but it’s a shame to have to do so.

    I did know a woman academic who I could never figure out. She called herself a feminist, but was into empowerment, sexxaay-ness, etc. Once I got on some of these blogs, it all made sense. I could never think of her as a real feminist. She was clearly trying to attract men and compete with women. I grieve the loss of real feminism, but I think there are some other parallels in academia, where subject matter has been weaked by the far-right wing, for instance, in science. It’s all politicized now. Academia is mostly dead.

  8. I was referring to the early academic feminists, who started women’s studies programs. The women who are in there now who call themselves feminists are not, as we know too well, with rare exception such as Sheila Jeffreys. Women generally fought very hard to get women into PhD programs in the 1960s and 1970s. There were sit-ins and protests, and virtually NO women in academia.

    If someone is blaming academic feminists, they should distinguish and tell us who they mean, and if they don’t mean these women, they should say so: Gail Dines, Sheila Jeffreys, Melissa Farley, Diana Russell, Phyllis Chesler, Paula Caplan, Robin Morgan many more, who have been the vanguard of the work done on pornography, prostitution, rape and women’s rights.

    • But in her post rmott was clearly referring to the man-pleasing academics who have gone out of their way to damage to the women’s movement over the past two decades, with their disingenuous work on prostitution and gender.

      She wasn’t talking about the pioneers at the turn of the last century, or lone voices in the wilderness.

      It’s fair to say Academic Feminists can be blamed not just for failing to bring the movement forwards, but for actively blocking its path.

      Feminism would have been a lot better off without women claiming to be feminists in the Gender Studies and even women’s studies departments in the academy . Of course the patriarchy was behind it. Universities and other bodies have been the ones funding the anti-feminist work that’s being churned out of universities; the men making the decisions have only been employing female academics who toe the line; men changed the name from women’s studies to gender studies. But I still think that women inside the academy should be held responsible for some of the utter shite that has been (and continues to be) published, by them, in academia

  9. No I don’t think it is fair to say what you’re saying. Radical feminists know what’s going on in “gender” studies isn’t feminism, and the propagators of it aren’t feminists.

    • Yes, radfems know that. Radfems in academia know that. Sheila Jeffreys is in the politics department at Melbourne, for example, not the gender studies department.
      But it’s completely and utterly TRUE to say that universities, those ancient patriarchal institutions, have damaged feminism over the past few decades, and altered women’s studies beyond all recognition.
      I remember Jeffreys saying, “we don’t want to STUDY gender!!! We want to abolish it!!”

  10. Well I absolutely agree with that. But I don’t go around saying “feminists” have done it. I make it clear these people are not feminists. When you say “feminists” and academic feminists have done this and that, to those not “in” it sounds like were bashing feminism.

    And regarding other feminists, who are not in gender studies, I have found more true feminism in other disciplines than where you’d expect to find feminism. English, for one example.

    Naive and questioning women are confused about WHO is a feminist. I think we aren’t helping that when we bash “feminists”.

  11. I did not say feminist academics or say that it was in particular women academics – I said that some students are influenced by academics and queer politics. This is main-streaming much of what is taught in many universities, and is undermining women’s studies – which in many places is being replaced by gender studies.
    There has been a male-pleasing attitude that frames prostitution as choose, uses the sex trade language of empowerment and liberating to women. It is made appear judgemental and prudish to frame prostitution and all aspects of the sex trade as a human rights issue – instead it framed as a labour issue.

    I know that there some brave academics who speaking out about the sex trade – but they are getting more and more marginalise, and often treated as if they are traitors. In that environment, I can understand why so many female academics toe the male line – but I don’t have to forget or even forgive that the brainwashing that the sex trade is just sex work, is daily putting women and girls in danger and allowing the sex trade profiteers to carry business as usual.

  12. Yes, the woman academic who claimed to be a “feminist” I mentioned above, she designed a course on sexuality, that was all the things you mentioned, Rebecca. I was kind of shocked that they’d let her do that, because she seemed quite irresponsible. She’s het and very seductive in her behavior and does not seem to like other women, I think she views all other women as competition for the males. But from these blogs, I now see that this is the norm for academic “feminists.”

    I shudder when I think of the young women who take this course and are being brainwashed. There are two people teaching it, the other one is a lesbian, but you’d think she was trans because she seems more concerned about trans rights than about lesbians.

    I once made a “politically incorrect” statement about trans (something extremely mild, I don’t remember exactly). This was at a dinner at someone’s house. The lesbian who teaches this class jumped all over me and acted as though I was stupid. I was quite surprised, because the dinner was a small group of lesbians and it seemed quite rude to do this. Apparently I didn’t know the party line when it came to trans. I based my statement on a trans person I knew, and it was not perjorative, just informational.

    • I had a massive shock when I realised just how bad the situation in academia actually is.

      Female academics who promote anti-feminist thought such as transgenderism or “prostitution is fun” , pole-dancing and BDSM is empowering tropes calling themselves Academic feminists. All the mainstream media refers to them as feminists. And unsurprisingly they are the only “feminists” to get a platform at all. Radfems, of course, are side-lined, shunned and “dissappeared”. I doubt Dworkin is taught in many (any?) universities.

      Myrtle,
      Yes, as I said above, there’s a difference between Academic Feminists and FEminist academics. English seems to be a bit better. I remember speaking to a woman who worked as an academic in an English literature department and she was struggling to get some Virginia Woolf into the classroom, so the *english* department, or perhaps the politics department are the only places you’re going to see radical feminism.
      In the department where they teach “FEMINISM”, you’re only going to find ANTI-FEMINISM.
      It’s a shocking sham.

      • Although I see where you’re coming from when you say it sounds like feminist bashing. It *is* feminist bashing, in the sense that these anti-feminist academics (infuriatingly) call themselves feminists! You’re right though, it’s important to criticize the academics without throwing the baby out with the bathwater and criticizng feminism as a movement.

  13. We need to push our understanding and definition of feminism which makes it clear That’s the problem. Even very well educated women who call themselves feminists don’t understand what feminism really means. It’s not whatever you say it is. It’s not just equality of the sexes. If we take part in this smearing of meaning, we give fuel to what we fight against.

  14. They are no more accountable then prostituted women are for being prostituted.

    And I won’t call those women “feminists” any more than I would call a prostituted woman a sex worker.

  15. How can academics not be accountable for their teachings – they are in a position of privilege of having access to education, of being in a job that has prestige, they are in a position of relative power.

    I would be very careful about comparing female academic to women inside prostitution. Prostitutes are normally stripped of basic human to have a voice that is not control by the sex trade or the consumers of prostitutes. In that environment – it is very hard to hold a prostitute as accountable.

    I think you comparing apples with concrete.

  16. I hold the academic institutions that hire them accountable. But then, those institutions are part of the patriarchy, and I doubt they’d acknowledge this.

    To me, it’s like hiring a biology prof who refuses to acknowledge the theory of evolution as a valid scientific theory.

    It’s like holding the pimps and johns responsible for prostitution, as well as other institutions within the patriarchy, like the legal system.

  17. P.S. That doesn’t mean I don’t think that these women teaching “gender studies” shouldn’t change, but obviously they did not get a proper education in the first place and were indoctrinated into a false academic world. In other words, while I don’t hold them accountable for their poor educations, I do hold them accountable to change and to stand up to the system once they have understood what is going on.

    I do think that they should be replaced in their jobs with real feminists unless they are competent to do their jobs. So, I’m not saying protect them at the expense of their students. Making a public example of a woman who is not doing her job would be bad, but replacing her with a real feminist might call attention to the problem and cause other institutions to change.

  18. Rebecca, we cross-posted, and it sounds like I am arguing with you about your point. I am not. I agree that there are glaring differences for the individuals involved in the different roles.

  19. I apologize for what seems like an intrusion of another topic. None of the above posts where in when I posted the OT.

    I don’t see any point in continuing what is devolving into restatement and argument.

    I will not blame the women in feminist so-called academia. There are so few of them, both feminist, and academics. We have to look elsewhere, and I happen to think, writing is the place.

    That’s really why were here, on the blogs. We all know, there is nothing there for us. We’re here, and we’re publishing our own stories.

    Leave the corpse. Listen to women tell their lives.

    • As I said, myrtle, this is the one area we’ll just have to disagree. I do think women who should know better can be held accountable. As rmott says, we are talking about women who have had access to all the libraries and books their heart desires.

      Would it have killed them to read some of the second-wavers, or talked to some prostitutes even, before they based theses and books on the glories of the sex industry?

      No, it wouldn’t have killed them.

  20. You make a good point, myrtle.

    First, I think we could choose to make a distinction between blaming and holding accountable. If a woman gets indoctrinated into a harmful belief system, starting at birth and continuing on through adulthood, she is not to blame. (All of us have this condition and the indoctrination is not exactly the same).

    On the other hand, once a woman does understand the system and how it works, she needs to be held accountable to the degree that she understands. This means that there is the expectation that she will do what she can to make changes in the system and to speak out when possible. I also think that holding someone else accountable is a tricky business. It is very difficult to judge someone else’s life, the pain that she has experienced, her ability to think clearly and thus to speak out. I think that confusion is one of the weapons the patriarchy uses and is very good at using.

    I do think that we need to have expectations of one another, like a woman calling herself an academic feminist when she is catering to the patriarchy. The main reason for this is that she is in a position to cause harm to many young women and to feminism, to help them take notice.

    I think that another weapon of the patriarchy is to divide women based on other factors. If there is a lot of blaming going on, that is divisive. In my experience in the second wave, there were women who listened to one another and gave one another the benefit of the doubt. These women still spoke out about issues like racism and classism. There are many invisible factors, like a woman who was raped and tortured by male family members who were “upper class.” Does this women have more or less privilege than one who was poor but raised with no close male relatives and a “good enough” mother?

    Sometimes this feedback is hard to give and sometimes it is hard to take looking at discrepant areas of privilege. It is important, but I don’t think it should supercede the commonality we all have as women. I think it is mostly an inside job if it really works, but we can’t do this in a vacuum, so we need to challenge one another, too.

    Women can very quickly move up or down in patriarchal privilege and this depends on males. For instance, if a woman is poor and she marries a rich man, overnight she has privilege. If she is raped and brutalized by him and objects, she might end up disappeared and his rich friends will protect him from prosecution. Rich women in some cultures can be victims of “honor killings.” Do these women have privilege? It is a very tricky business. There is no doubt that women around the world have better and much worse conditions depending on where and when they were born and many other factors. It is easy for the patriarchy to divide us through jealousy, and when someone is rich, we may be jealous if we are not. This, too, is fostered by the patriarchy.

    We need to be careful of the confusion and divisiveness that will be sown whenever possible. I think that today’s “female academic feminists” need to be called to account, but is it possible to do that with compassion?

    Then there is the question of strategy. Is it workable to become very vocal and target a specific female academic? Are there not males who are sexually harrassing students in academia? In which places do we need to put our energy? Where will it do the most good? We have different circumstances and different roles to play, but can we support one another to do this?

  21. “On the other hand, once a woman does understand the system and how it works, she needs to be held accountable to the degree that she understands. ”

    Academic feminists aside, I think this is the crux of what we’re all arguing here.

    Looking at the feminist movement objectively, we have to accept that rmott is absolutely spot on when she says that feminist academics have done damage to the movement that the second wavers began. This must be recognized because then we can learn from it. We can’t say it didn’t happen, otherwize it will happen again.
    THe books that academics publish filter over into society and they get an enormous platform in mainstream culture as long as their work falls in line with what the patriarchy wants.

    I’ve already said above, that the patriarchy was to blame for this, of course, because the men in power chose women they knew would be pliable. It was the men who decided to change the departments’ names from women’s studies to gender studies.

    I’m not talking about intersectionality. Of course women cannot be blamed for their own oppression, and definitely not for “oppressing other women”. Rich and white women bleed too, and cannot escape their sex-based opression. WOmen have so very little power under patriarchy that they can barely control what goes on in their own lives, let alone in someone elses. So if you read my writing you’ll see that my main motto is “women do what they can to survive under the regime” and the other is “you have to walk a mile in another woman’s shoes before you judge”

    However,

    in the case of the academics it was almost a deliberate, systematic process of denigrating and “pissing on” the second wavers, resulting in twenty years of books being written that fed into the backlash and dissappeared the real suffering of women in prostitution and porn.
    Some even tried to “dissappear” the concept of women altogether, making lots of money on the post-modern concept that women don’t exist, and therefore don’t exist as a class, and therefore are not oppressed at all. Radical feminism was called “victim feminism” and they taught this to an entire generation of young women.

    I am calling it out.

    It needs to be called out so that ALL women can understand the rot that exists in academia. So that unsuspecting women wanting a career in academia are forced to see they’ll have to sell out too in order to do well in this field.

  22. Here’s an article by Adrienne Rich, Claiming an Education

    http://myweb.cwpost.liu.edu/lbai/Data/English%201F–Materials/Open%20Questions/Claiming%20an%20Education.pdf

    It was written in 1977. She talks about claiming an education as being about far more than “processing human beings into expected roles” via grades and tests and about the contract between student and teacher, which she calls intellectual and ethical. She goes on to say that students need to claim an education through this contract. This sets a standard for accountability.

  23. The writings of the Second Wave feminists were so much better than *what abounds today, including sadly, much of the second waver’s recent work.

    *Excepting present company.

  24. So many like that Fab. I recall the wife of a highly placed politician. She was a lawyer who gave up her career for his. Said to have been a brilliant lawyer… .

    They fished her out of a river. He was quoted as agonizing on how she may have been going through menopause. I tell you a fire rose up inside me I thought i was going to explode.

    In less than a year he married a woman who was a long way from menopause.

    So Mrs. Politician, from a privileged background herself, married to a privileged and wealthy man, wasn’t protected.

  25. May I just say I think when it comes to the sex trade – there is a market for all women and girls are made marketable and consumable.
    My background was privileged in tons of ways – my family are upper middle-class, I am white, I am Northern European. That privilege was used by the sex trade – for many punters and consumers want to screw the posh bitch into the ground.

    The thing about the sex trade is that it will break down any girl or woman whatever her background – and make her sub-human.

    that does happened to academics.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s