Men in Dresses: A Voice for Men stands up for trans women by declaring them to be deluded men

Men in dresses: How A Voice for Men sees trans women

Men in dresses: How A Voice for Men chose to promote its post about trans women

Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men has not exactly shown much of an interest in trans* issues in the past. Indeed, the only time I can recall founder Paul Elam ever even mentioning trans* people was in the context of a vicious attack on a Men’s Studies expert who happens to be a trans woman; he suggested she was a mentally ill man-hater whose “so hated the sex they were born with that it sparked a life long academic quest to deconstruct it into something that did not disgust them.”

So it’s a little surprising to see a post on AVFM now with the seemingly dispassionate, slightly turgid, title “Male/female discrepancies in transsexualism.” The post starts out as dry as its title, but it soon becomes clear that it is “scientific” in style only. It’s not an attempt to understand trans women or trans people in general; it’s an attempt to use the existence of trans women as a helpful prop in an old Men’s Rights argument.

After declaring that “the inherent,prenatal explanations for transsexualism are highly questionable” — without actually examining any of these explanations beyond mentioning one study —  Jesse Folsom offers his own crackpot theory to explain why, in his words, there are more “male-to-female [than] female-to-male transsexuals.”

In short, he asserts, our society is so biased against boys and men that a lot of boys and men have decided that they want to become girls and women. And naturally, feminists are largely to blame.

[W]hy would a young boy associate more with the stereotypes assigned to girls? Well, one good reason would be because he wants to, because he regards his stereotypes of women as superior. For instance, in a feminist household, expressions of masculinity may be viewed with derision, or, when there is a father present, as a source of shame.

Also, in case you hadn’t realized this, most mothers are women as well:

Even without such associations, however, a child often just spends more time with his or her mother.

Oh, and so are teachers. It’s like there’s some sort of plot!

While it does not occur until after a large proportion of gender ideas are formed, school also exposes children, primarily, to female role models. Not to mention the fact that many behaviors typical of boys are frowned upon and even drugged out of them in modern school environments.

As a result, young boys have no real role models in society.

And where do boys find themselves today? Today, women can be anything they want. Women can be action heroes, happy homemakers, corporate executives, and powerful politicians.

Obviously there are no examples of men in any of these roles for boys to look up to.

There are two categories of fashion, fashion for everyone and fashion for women only. Women are the ones seen as beautiful and glamorous. Women are kind, gentle, empathetic, and allowed to freely express emotion. With the traditional strengths of men now seen as irrelevant or even negative, why wouldn’t a boy rather be a girl? Is this not as good an explanation as any for the discrepancies between MtF and FtM transsexualism?

Well, actually, no. But Folsom continues, insinuating that this evil feministy brainwashing does terrible damage to all the poor little boys who have decided that they want to be girls:

It is simply implausible that a child that associates with the opposite sex label has any real understanding of what that means, but unfortunately, such associations often stick. Further, this gender dysphoria is extremely harmful, frequently leading to severe depression and high suicide and poverty rates for transsexuals. As one might expect, researchers believe that male-to-female transsexuals are the hardest-hit by these problems.

Aside from all the general bullshittery of Folsom’s not-very-original theory here, it’s telling that he never refers to trans women as, well, women, preferring instead to refer to them either as male-to-female transsexuals — or to actually refer to them as male. Like Elam, clearly doesn’t see trans women as real women, but rather as men suffering from some sort of delusion, driven by internalized misandry.

And that’s really the only way that AVFM can have any sympathy for trans women at all: if they’re seen as male victims of feminism, and not as women at all.

Regular Man Boobz commenter Ally S ventured into the Men’s Rights subreddit to offer a rather more nuanced view of the subject. Some highlights:

This article is almost exactly like countless articles written by trans-exclusionary radical feminists. The only real difference is that the arguments are being used to further support MRA talking points rather than TERF talking points. …

When I was little, I didn’t identify as a girl because I associated more with femininity and stereotypes about girls. It was the other way around: I came to associate more with femininity and stereotypes about girls because I identified as a girl. Just as cis girls associate with stereotypes related to their own gender. …

I guarantee that virtually any trans woman will say that adherence to stereotypes and misandry have nothing to do with identifying as female. That’s because there’s a difference between gender identity and gender expression. Personally, I am a trans woman, but my clothing style is basically agender and I engage in what are often considered masculine activities, such as programming. And when I was a child, I actually saw feminine traits as inferior, not superior – yet I still identified as a girl. I have many friends who have had similar experiences. …

Lastly, deliberately misgendering trans women (you know, what the author does in every other sentence) is completely unacceptable, even if one is speaking about young children. We are not and never will be men.

You can see Ally’s entire comment here, as well as a number of detailed followups. Amazingly, they actually got upvotes in the Men’s Rights subreddit, where Folsom’s article received a generally hostile reception. Apparently some of AVFM’s bullshit is so bullshitty that even Men’s Rights Redditors can recognize it as such.

About these ads

Posted on December 29, 2013, in a voice for men, a woman is always to blame, antifeminism, citation needed, crackpottery, grandiosity, imaginary backwards land, it's science!, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, reddit, that's completely wrong, transphobia and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 270 Comments.

  1. RE: the term trans*

    Within the trans community in general, there is still some denialism regarding transmisogyny; there are trans people who attempt to silence discussions regarding the uniqueness of anti-trans-woman oppression under the pretense of “We’re all in this together.” It’s a form of trans woman erasure, in other words.

    Because the asterisk is intended to denote broadness and inclusion, it is seen as a symbol of homogenization that silences trans people who are oppressed by transmisogyny. It’s kind of like telling a cis woman that she shouldn’t complain about misogyny because everyone is oppressed by sexism, misandry, etc.

    I personally don’t see the asterisk as a symbol of erasure, but I avoid using it anyway because I have never run into anyone who actually has a problem with not using the asterisk and because a lot of trans women I know are averse to it.

  2. Basically, my advice for anyone who is confused about the asterisk is to just avoid using it.

  3. Thanks for that explanation, Ally. I’ve never seen it before posting here or on Feministe, and only use it because it seems to be the norm, and have some sort of meaning, which I don’t think I’ve actually seen explained till now. I don’t care for it either, stylistically (oh, and to space or not to space after it – wut?) and it doesn’t seem to add meaning. If anything it looks like communication meant for an in-group that already knows the meaning, like jargon. I’m happy to drop it.

  4. Another thing: many trans women associate the asterisk with the tendency of some CAFAB trans people to want to use women-only spaces. I have seen some trans men actually argue that they should be allowed in women’s spaces (cis or trans) because “all trans* people are oppressed by trans*phobia” and similar nonsensical excuses.

  5. What’s CAFAB, Ally?

  6. CAFAB stands for “coercively assigned female at birth.” I should have used DFAB (designated female at birth) instead because CAFAB is typically used to describe intersex people who underwent “corrective” surgery at birth.

  7. Coercively seems … an odd term, when used of a baby. Everything is coercive in that sense, from surgery down to everyday things, because you can’t get a baby’s permission. I’m not saying intersex babies should be operated on, only that it seems to be stretching the meaning of coercion way too far. DFAB makes more sense to me for both trans people (not least since how’s anyone going to know if an infant is cis or trans?) and intersex people.

  8. I think the purpose of the adverb “coercively” is to highlight the coercive nature of the surgery, given that society at large still believes that “corrective” surgeries are totally okay and not unnecessarily invasive. It’s also because these surgeries are part of a system that is intended to maintain the patriarchy by erasing the existence of intersexuality.

  9. Huh, so, I obviously wasn’t paying attention as closely as I thought. Lyss, I apologize for the snottiness. Everyone else, I apologize for making assumptions.

  10. Hmm, good point, Ally. I’m not wild about the word choice – coercion means threats and forcing compliance, and that hardly applies here – but I do see the point about society not recognising intersexuality. I was surprised recently by an article in the Age that mentioned the more minor forms are more common than being red-headed. That was a striking comparison, and sure points up the “why is this being operated on?” question.

  11. Okay, I hafta disappear and get back to my knitting. I’m not going to get my jacket finished before I go back to work at this rate! Catch yez later. :)

  12. @Ally S
    I’m relieved to read your posts, because I was a bit strident about rejecting trans with an asterisk in my posts and feared I’d get a Feministe-style talking to. Thankfully Manboobz isn’t that sort of place. I didn’t know the asterisk is problematic for trans women, thanks for the info.

    I also can’t stand “trans umbrella” talk, because while I’m supportive of non-gender conforming people, it takes focus away from the legal and, more importantly, medical issues trans women and men face pre and post transition. Cutting edge Gender Theory talk is nice and all, but I’d chuck most of it for a bunch of rigorous clinical studies of hormonal treatment effects and effective gender identity anti-discrimination laws.

    You know and care a whole hell of a lot more about these issues then I do for obvious reasons, but I’m annoyed when trans allies post trans umbrella graphics that list every non-gender normative and non-binary group under the sun. There is more important work to be done than language policing and complaining about Dan Savage. (Dan is a textbook example of a asshat though.)

  13. But we’re still allowed to complain about Dan Savage, right? I mean, he’s a total asshole.

  14. I was surprised recently by an article in the Age that mentioned the more minor forms [of intersexuality] are more common than being red-headed.

    Wow, I never knew that! I guess I really am a rare bird, then!

    Re the asterisk: Thanks so much, Ally and Lyss, for clearing up the confusion around that. I felt somewhat guilty about not using it before, wondering if my erring on the side of economy (along with writing just “LGBT” instead of the whole alphabet soup of other sex/gender variant acronyms) was somehow inadvertently stepping on someone else’s toes. I feel better knowing now that it’s not necessary…and surprised to learn that it comes off as alienating to some. The last thing I want to do is alienate anyone (unless, of course, it’s MRAsshats).

  15. But we’re still allowed to complain about Dan Savage, right? I mean, he’s a total asshole.

    If complaining about Dan Savage is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.

  16. @katz

    But we’re still allowed to complain about Dan Savage, right? I mean, he’s a total asshole.

    I cringe every time I hear his name. Seriously.

  17. I’m occasionally tempted to use his name as an illustration of what happens when gay men try to splain sexualities that they don’t share and clearly don’t understand, kind of like he did with “santorum”. Why exactly does he think he’s qualified to give women advice about how they should fuck?

  18. “…but I’m annoyed when trans allies post trans umbrella graphics that list every non-gender normative and non-binary group under the sun.”

    Um, I’m gonna go debate, again, whether my non-binary ass is trans* or an ally or what…

    In any case, that’s why I use the asterisk, it is, in my mind, more inclusive. Clearly ymmv on that.

  19. Argenti, I’m sorry if I came across as judgmental or silencing when I talked about why some trans women don’t like the asterisk. I don’t want to engage in non-binary erasure.

  20. I’m occasionally tempted to use his name as an illustration of what happens when gay men try to splain sexualities that they don’t share and clearly don’t understand, kind of like he did with “santorum”. Why exactly does he think he’s qualified to give women advice about how they should fuck?

    Because being a gay guy makes you sex-on-legs, apparently.

    And yes, I’m all for using “DanSavage” as a verb for giving shitty, solipsistic advice. Example: “That asshole totally DanSavaged me when I only wanted to know how to fix my windshield wiper!”

  21. Someone explain Dan Savage to me? I’ve no idea who the guy is.

  22. Dan Savage writes a column called Savage Love. He’s essentially (warning, snark ahead) of the view that if you’re not a thinwhitegayman who sleeps around, then you’re really not worth much, but he knows everything and especially how you should be fucking.

    He once abused a rape survivor, a woman, who asked his advice. She was in a poly relationship and found she could have sex with her boyfriend, but not her husband, because sex with him was triggering. Savage treated her like shit and heaped blame on her for being horrible and cruel to her husband, blah blah blah.

    He really is a piece of shit.

  23. EWWW THIS GUY IS A FUCKING ASSHAT. May he find out he’s a terrible person.

  24. RE: Ally

    Basically, my advice for anyone who is confused about the asterisk is to just avoid using it.

    THANK YOU! I pretty much missed that terminology battle, and just had no fucks to give after all the fights I’d seen. (Oh god, the transgender vs. transsexual wars… oh god make them stop.) And seeing the douchebaggery I’ve seen from other trans men… yeah, now I don’t feel bad for ever using that stupid fucking asterisk.

    RE: Brooked

    while I’m supportive of non-gender conforming people, it takes focus away from the legal and, more importantly, medical issues trans women and men face pre and post transition.

    Um, keep in mind, not all trans women and men choose or are able to medically transition. Legal issues and medical issues are a total problem, but I’ve also seen my non-binary friends get tossed under the bus (or beaten, in one case) too many times to be okay with what you just said.

    RE: Argenti

    In my opinion, if YOU see yourself as trans, then you are trans. The rest of em can go piss in a fire.

    RE: katz

    But we’re still allowed to complain about Dan Savage, right? I mean, he’s a total asshole.

    Everyone is totally allowed to complain about Dan Savage as much as they damn well please, in my opinion. I hate that guy.

  25. Huh. I didn’t know that the asterisk for trans was in huge contention. Thanks for educating me on it, Ally. I’ll try to not use it anymore.

  26. Also adding: non-binary folk transition as well. My genderqueer friend has done more shit than I have, and gone through more trouble. Hell, had we survived to adulthood singlet, WE would’ve been genderqueer; I’m the outlier.

    So yeah, it’s a false comparison.

  27. More DanSavagery (warning: will make your blood boil).

  28. To be clear, I don’t actually have anything against the use of the asterisk, especially if a non-binary trans person wants to use it. I’m just pointing out that 1) some trans women are critical of it and 2) in general, it’s easier to just use something like “trans” instead without the asterisk. My posts upthread made it sound like I was calling out people using the asterisk, such as Argenti. But that wasn’t my intent (if anything, I’m just critical of people using the asterisk to silence trans women), and I’m sorry.

  29. No, Ally, your post upthread had me questioning if I was putting my preferences above the preferences of people far more likely to face transphobia (and specifically transmisogyny, and far more…valid? Logical? reasons for those preferences, whereas mine have no basis besides liking it) — the sort of questioning that’s good for the brain.

    LBT (and Ally) — thanks, I get weird on this one since I get, uh, passing privilege, I guess. Gods I hate that term, cuz yes, I totally pass as my assigned gender…um…perfect? I mean, not facing violence is obviously good, but misgendering as a standard fact? Not so fond. I’m babbling >.<

    Nobody better piss in the fire though, I have a hard enough time keeping it lit with my father constantly poking it and destroying the airflow!

  30. When I first saw trans*, I kept looking to the bottom of the post for the note…

  31. I still do that, wordsp1nner.

  32. @Bina

    Holy shit.

    I knew he was horrible, but not that horrible. Wow.

  33. serrana

    … So do I. I understand the desire behind the term trans*, but do question the use of something that is an established signifier (of there being further explanation elsewhere in the text) to mean something else. After all, what if someone wanted to put a asterix-identified note after trans*? I mean, it does seem like the kind of term you’d see one.

    But you know, I’m cis, so I’ll default to whatever the people affected want, or at least the plurality of the ones I’m talking to.

  34. RE: Argenti

    LBT (and Ally) — thanks, I get weird on this one since I get, uh, passing privilege, I guess.

    So do I. I have had top surgery AND hormones, and I STILL have passing privilege as a woman in this city. *shrugs* Go figure.

  35. Well, that adds to the list of reasons Dan Savage is a PoS. I’d seen the horrible thing about the rape victim before (it’s the one I referred to above) and saw the others earlier today, but the bit about Cool Story Bro and getting poo on his prong was new.

    Notice how Savage is willing to imagine the woman in that story as being blind drunk, yet he still puts the blame on her for whatever happened, not on the poooor man who’s writing to him? No suggestion that, hey, if she was blind drunk, you shouldn’t have been doing anything, ‘cos that’s rape.

  36. Enh, the thing that turned me off Savage was that recent article where he talked about it apparently being totally okay to pretend your incest play was real with an online partner, because nobody believes in that shit anyway.

    I was still boggled that it was in the paper. Did nobody go up to the guy and be like, “Uh, dude…”

  37. Oh my, look at this exchange (in the comment section of the article) between Elam and a trans woman who was critical of the article:

    I’m a trans woman and I’d just like to say that I am a woman.

    There is no need for extended discussion between TERFs or MRAs. There is no need for cis people to speculate why I’m not okay with being a man.

    The only thing all of you need to do is accept people for who they are and leave it at that.

    (and you should probably think twice about acting like men have it bad, at all)

    First of all welcome to the house of pain.

    Second, fuck you. There is no need for you to imagine you are the arbiter of what people discuss, with whom, or whether or not it is extended. If someone told you that was your place, they lied to you.

    The same for your officious instructions of what I or anyone else here needs to accept or not, and what they should or should not believe.

    I bet you were just as much of an arrogant prick as a man as you are now, as a woman.

    And here’s one MRA being very honest about the MRM’s transmisogyny:

    This article should get taken down.

    AVFM’s mission statement says:

    “AVFM’s sole ideology is compassion for men and boys that is equal to that of women and any other identified group.”

    I believe it fair to say that our viewpoint entails that biological sex trumps psycho-social gender when there is any doubt. Consequently, what gets called a “trans woman” we tend to regard as male. From our own viewpoint, the most upvoted commenter named ally_s94 at the Men’s Rights reddit makes it clear that this article does not promote compassion to these sorts of men and boys equal to that of women. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1tvbzt/another_stunning_hard_hitting_avfm_expose_sure_to/

  38. I understand the desire behind the term trans*, but do question the use of something that is an established signifier (of there being further explanation elsewhere in the text) to mean something else. After all, what if someone wanted to put a asterix-identified note after trans*? I mean, it does seem like the kind of term you’d see one.

    Well, an asterisk is also used in search terms to indicate “a set of any characters,” so trans* to mean “transgender or transsexual or trans-anything else” isn’t entirely without meaning. But generally, words shouldn’t randomly contain punctuation that isn’t a dash or an apostrophe.

  39. Elam’s response is, well, pretty much what I’d expect from him. I’m a little curious about his “welcome to the house of pain” bit at the start. Is that supposed to be a threat, or is it supposed to mean, “shut up with your stupid problems, because this is where the real men with the real problems talk about real man things.”

    Because I just went and looked at that woman’s twitter and she seems pretty awesome, and has more courage in her little finger than the MRM has in its entire movement. She’s taking on TERFs and dealing with their awful harassment on a daily basis.

    https://twitter.com/PaxCorpus

  40. I’m a little curious about his “welcome to the house of pain” bit at the start. Is that supposed to be a threat, or is it supposed to mean, “shut up with your stupid problems, because this is where the real men with the real problems talk about real man things.”

    More likely than not he’s just being his perpetually angry, bitter self. It does fit with that FTSU stuff he espouses, though.

  41. First of all welcome to the house of pain.

    Second, fuck you. There is no need for you to imagine you are the arbiter of what people discuss, with whom, or whether or not it is extended. If someone told you that was your place, they lied to you.

    The same for your officious instructions of what I or anyone else here needs to accept or not, and what they should or should not believe.

    I bet you were just as much of an arrogant prick as a man as you are now, as a woman.

    Paul Fucking Elam, y’all. Head of the Greatest Human Rights Movement in the History of EVAR™.

    Damn, can that dude ever project!

  42. What’s the point of them having a comment section if he doesn’t think people should discuss there?

  43. I’m a little curious about his “welcome to the house of pain” bit at the start. Is that supposed to be a threat, or is it supposed to mean, “shut up with your stupid problems, because this is where the real men with the real problems talk about real man things.”

    I think it means “The assholery I’m about to display is par for the course here at AVfM”.

  44. I missed some of the post from last posts from the last night and want to apologize if I was acting if my testiness over an asterisk was more important than than having empathy for people. I think is respecting people struggle with identity is baseline decency, so sorry about that.

    Elem is clearly shitty to trans in general, but also any woman who was the temerity to tell him “you should probably think twice about acting like men have it bad, at all” on his own holy site is going to get a full rage attack. Elem probably would normally delete that comment, but felt the need to make an example of her.

  45. Whoops, meant to write “who has the temerity”.

  46. Auggz — so he can get his ego stroked of course.

    As for Elam’s reply to her, and that other commenter, wtf guys? Seriously, biology trumps “psycho-social gender” when there’s doubt? Hey Ally, any doubt you’re a woman? No? Okay then, where’s this magical doubt coming from then? Oh, right, the assholes who want to use woman like you as an example no matter how many times they are told they’re wrong.

    I’ve had fish with more empathy than them.

  47. I bet you were just as much of an arrogant prick as a man as you are now, as a woman.

    It’s a bad sign that my first reaction was “well, at least he’s acknowledging that she’s female…”

  48. My first reaction to that was “Yet another MRA who thinks that trans women are ‘men who become women’.”

  49. My first reaction to that was “Yet another MRA who thinks that trans women are ‘men who become women’.”

    Seriously. If he had done the tiniest amount of research on trans issues … But what am I saying? Asking people to do research and learn about things before they spew about them on the Internet is misandry!

  50. Yup. I sure do love them Men’s Rightsers, they sure do care about trans folks, mmmm-hmmm. *eyeroll*

    I also love how Elam acts like part of being a man is being a douche to people around you. Because men are TOUGH! They don’t need things like common decency! They can just be raging assholes at all times, and this is how they BOND!

    Please. I’ve seen less cockfighting in cockrub warrior porn.

  51. Here’s an amusing discussion I’m having with u/ComicKeys about intersectionality in the MRM: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1tvbzt/another_stunning_hard_hitting_avfm_expose_sure_to/cedkqya

    They’re nice and all (they even wished me Happy New Year, something I’d never expect from most MRAs), but I’m giving major side-eye to them saying “I don’t think the MRM has what it takes politically to have that discussion [regarding intersectionality] yet.” He sounds almost exactly like a white-centric feminist.

  52. In a sense, he’s right about them not having what it takes … because they haven’t a shred of empathy and precious little intelligence in their entire movement. MRAs discussing intersectionality would be all fail.

  53. Oh my, check out this terrible comment I just got in reply to me talking about how the MRM should be intersectional:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1tvbzt/another_stunning_hard_hitting_avfm_expose_sure_to/cegnjp8

    Notable excerpts:

    The elevation of minor issues like body image because that play on human insecurities itself was about relatively well off white women desperate to establish their victim status. Men have bigger issues and ought not seriously waste time on that now anymore than they would dealing with sexual rejection.

    Translation: The issue of body image is as insigificant as being rejected by someone you want to have sex with.

    Save the academic talk for when we have a academic body of note dealing with men’s issues. Until then simply getting people to care takes more than we got to offer. Talking like feminists is to expose their hypocrisy and is not a endorsement of their perspective and tactics. We want a new order that doesn’t exclude people based on some centralized moral authority or ideological consensus run by the latest batch of college grads from liberal arts schools. The lie/scam of intersectionality isn’t a way forward.

    Oh my. That’s telling.

  54. “We want a new order that doesn’t exclude people based on some centralized moral authority or ideological consensus run by the latest batch of college grads from liberal arts schools.”

    He sounds just like Rick Santorum.

    “The lie/scam of intersectionality isn’t a way forward.”

    Why did he need to say “lie/scam”?

  55. Well, we know that MRAs treat sexual rejection as completely insignificant. They certainly never waste time on that.

  56. When political movements try to pay attention to the concerns of people who’re not straight white men that’s a scam, because people who are not straight white men don’t actually deserve to be paid attention to. Also, nobody’s identity is complex, and people who claim that it is are liars.

    (Nods wisely)

  57. Also, if you look at the entire exchange carefully, you’ll see that, in response to me talking about trans men being abused in homeless shelters, he says “The issues of trans women in homeless shelters is super niche. It’s a subset of a tiny group better handled by those focused on that tiny group.”

    Purposeful misgendering plus marginalization of trans men issues. How adorable.

  58. “We want a new order that doesn’t exclude people based on some centralized moral authority or ideological consensus run by the latest batch of college grads from liberal arts schools.”

    Translation: We want the 1950s back…and old white ultraconservative men in charge of everything.

  59. Sometimes I think it’s the 1850s they want back … you know, the good ol’ days before women could vote, or own any property post-marriage, and when middle-class women were almost wholly excluded from earning a living and had little choice but to marry, and the children they bore were the property of the husband, as was any money they made through writing, for example, or anything they made, like clothing. Coverture is what these guys want, though I doubt any of them’s ever heard the word.

    Plus of course in the US context it would be antebellum, which would appeal to their racism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,379 other followers

%d bloggers like this: