Language Matters
Posted: April 8, 2012 Filed under: Women's Rights | Tags: discrimination against women, language 33 CommentsIf you are a woman, you have probably noticed that the English language has an abundance of derogatory, hateful, nasty, defamatory and downright ugly words to describe women and their anatomy. Where men are concerned, the English language really doesn’t have comparable terms for the male of the species. Take a moment and think about it. How many can you come up with?
Language is just another area in which women are treated unequally. Language has long been important to me. Many years ago, when I was deeply involved in the animal rights movement, I spoke at one of our meetings about colloquialisms we use on a daily basis They are so much a part of our language that we use them without even thinking about them. Some examples include:
· More than one way to skin a cat
· Like shooting fish in a barrel
· You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear
· Like a rat in a trap
· A wolf in sheep’s clothing
· Kill two birds with one stone
My suggestion, at the time, was to substitute BROCCOLI for the non-human animal species named in the phrase. When used, it gets people’s attention, pointing out to them the inherent cruelty of the common phrase. Guess I was ahead of my time, in light of the recent discussions about the Affordable Care Act. Now I’m starting to feel bad for broccoli.
And, of course, it’s common when making derogatory comments about people, they are compared to animals in a negative way. Some of the name calling includes:
· Pig
· Dog
· Cow
· Horse’s ass
· Snake
· Harpy
· Rat
· Worm
· Hare-brained
For me, instead of defaming the person, whose acts or actions are deplorable, it demeans the very character of the animal. Personally, I think calling someone a “human” is a more accurate and defamatory epithet. That’s because, for me, we humans have more offensive characters than do any other species of animal.
So, now that you’ve had some time to ponder the inequality of our language, how is your list coming along? Has it become clear yet that both women and non-human animals are most often the ones for whom negatively descriptive words are used? Have you come up with a list of insulting words and phrases for men? Those most often used include calling a man a girl, a douche bag, a sissy or a pussy. Doesn’t that seem to imply that being female is negative, instead of calling into question negative male characteristics or behavior? Instead of attacking bad or negative male characteristics and behaviors, these words attack the female. Even when a man is called a dick, is that really negative? After all, isn’t his penis a man’s most prized and protected possession? Isn’t that generally something he’s proud of and proud to possess?
My point is, think before you speak. Consider the meaning and, if you still insist on name-calling, then consider using more appropriate words or phrases. Use ones that go more to the point to characterize the behavior you find offensive. Words have power, so use them appropriately. Here are my suggestions when a male steps over the line:
· Dick-less
· Little man
· Suffering from shrunken balls syndrome
· He’s a real hand job
· Eunuch
· Castrado
· Suffers from vagina envy
· Limp dick
· Testosterone poisoning
· Suffering from penis separation anxiety
Then there is my personal favorite, one that I’ve used for years:
The bigger the gun, the smaller the dick.
Feel free to share your suggestions in the comments section.
Women’s Issues are like an Imaginary War on Caterpillars because ?
Posted: April 5, 2012 Filed under: War on Women, Women's Healthcare, Women's Rights | Tags: patronizing assholes, Reince Preibus 22 CommentsRepublicans are denying they have a woman problem. They are using less-than-artful metaphors. Several elected state officials have compared our pregnancies to those of livestock. Now, our disgust with defunding of planned parenthood and restricting access to birth control are just basically an imaginary insect invasion dreamed up by the likes of James Carville. Yup, the head of the RNC thinks that the War on Women’s reproductive and
workplace rights are imaginary and akin to a War on Caterpillars.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus talked himself into some trouble this morning after accusing the media of creating a fake gender war and comparing it to a “war on caterpillars.”
“If the Democrats said we had a war on caterpillars and every mainstream media outlet talked about the fact that Republicans have a war on caterpillars, then we’d have problems with caterpillars,” Priebus said in an interview with Bloomberg TV’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt” set to air this weekend. “It’s a fiction.”
Priebus appeared on the show with Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the pair debated gender issues, including contraception and requiring women to undergo ultrasounds before getting an abortion.
While Priebus blamed the media for blowing the debate out of proportion, Wasserman Schultz took the opportunity to blast Republicans for their stance on several of these issues.
“The jury of women across America have ruled that the Republicans have been unbelievably extreme and out of touch and hyper-focused on cultural issues,” Wasserman Schultz said on Bloomberg.
Yup, we’ve gone from livestock to insects in the minds of key Republican officials. You can watch this morning’s Caterpillar Catastrophe here. Don’t forget the Georgia “Women as Livestock” bill that severely restricts a woman’s constitutional right to abortion access.
Commonly referred to as the “fetal pain bill” by Georgian Republicans and as the “women as livestock bill” by everyone else, HB 954 garnered national attention this month when state Rep. Terry England (R-Auburn) compared pregnant women carrying stillborn fetuses to the cows and pigs on his farm. According to Rep. England and his warped thought process, if farmers have to “deliver calves, dead or alive,” then a woman carrying a dead fetus, or one not expected to survive, should have to carry it to term.
Romney supporters have been scrambling to recover the number of women fleeing the party. They insist that women have the same concerns that men do and that the democrats are simply inventing their anti-women positions. Yet, Romney has recently reversed his old positions on women’s health to win right wing voters by adopting the anti-women positions of Santorum and others. Romney supported the Blunt amendment in a direct reversal of earlier comments that indicated a women’s access to birth control was a private matter. Here’s his latest anti-women primary positions.
1. He’s going to ‘get rid of’ Planned Parenthood. In his most blatant attack on basic women’s services, Romney made this claim: “Planned Parenthood, we’re going to get rid of that.” Of course, as a Presidential candidate Romney surely knows that Planned Parenthood provides essential medical services, primarily to low-income women, including mammograms and pap smears, as well as important family planning services. Romney has pledged to defund Title X, a program that provides family planning services.
2. Romney supports the Blunt Amendment which would allow employers to deny health insurance coverage on the basis of moral objections — a rule aimed at allowing employers to opt out of providing benefits that undermined their consciences, including contraceptive coverage. But as governor of Massachusetts, Romney required all health care providers– including Catholic hospitals — to offer emergency contraception to rape victims.
3. Romney is fighting a covert battle against contraception, even if he is doing his best not to call it that. While Romney used to be firmly pro-choice and pro-contraceptives, he has positioned himself in the campaign to be a fighter of morality, saying that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes a “secular vision on America” by requiring employers to provide contraceptives in their insurance coverage. He is also misleading the public on what the ACA will do for women.
4. Romney failed to condemn Rush Limbaugh’s characterization of Sandra Fluke as a “slut.” Romney said “it’s not the language I would have used,” but refused to go any further in condemning Limbaugh’s attacks on the Georgetown Law student who testified in support of the ACA’s contraceptive rule. In not standing up for basic women’s rights, Romney’s complacency is as good as consent.
5. Romney supports restricting access to abortions. He has called Roe v. Wade “one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history.” He’s even said that he’d support state constitutional amendments to define life at conception, which would effectively outlaw abortions under any circumstance.
Romney and his campaign have decided to use wife Ann as a way to woo women. Instead of finding out what women want, Romney says he asks his wife.
But Mitt Romney is running for president and he’s talking about the majority of the American electorate like a strange, exotic species to be fully understood only by someone who knows their strange, native ways.
His answer played exactly into the caricature that has emerged of him– incapable of relating to ordinary Americans (in this case women) and so disconnected from reality that he needs a scout to go out into the wilds of normal America and come back with a full report for him to digest on his own.
He could supplement Mrs. Romney’s field reports to him about female voters with some of the data found deep within the swing state poll, which showed that women’s top priorities going into November are health care, gas prices and unemployment. The deficit comes right after that, but what comes in dead last for women’s own priorities going into the election? Government policies toward contraception.
On that score, Romney seems to be paying for the sins of his party. Although he has not raised the issue on his own, the Republican Party itself seems to have made women’s access to contraception and abortion a top priority over the last several months and alarmed independent and moderate women in the process. Although women in the poll didn’t call the issue a priority for themselves, a majority said they were following the debate on the issue very closely or somewhat closely.
It certainly isn’t helping Romney for Santorum to be out pushing social issues. Here’s some of the numbers that show that women aren’t buying the Republican arguments. Romney is facing up to an 18% gender gap right now.
A much discussed USA Today poll shows that Romney is headed for defeat because his party is unattractive to women. At the moment, Romney leads Obama among men by 48 to 47 percent; but he trails among women, 54 to 36 percent. The gender gap is wide enough to re-elect the president by a landslide of 51 to 42 percent.
A lot of pundits have leapt on the idea that the recent debates over government-funded or mandated contraception have made the GOP brand toxic to women. But the USA Today poll indicates that the issue’s impact is rather more qualified than that.
Both men and women rate “government policies on birth control” as the least important question in 2012, and 63 percent of them don’t even know where Romney stands on it. About the same proportion dislikes Romney’s position (24 percent) as much as they do Obama’s (25 percent).
The real gender gap in the USA Today poll is that men think the deficit is the most important issue while women think it’s health care. In short, independent women voters are more exercised about the GOP’s opposition to “Obamacare” than they are its objection to free contraception.
Add to all of this the state-level attacks on public education, abortion access, and public worker unions. Many teachers and state employees are women. These are the bread-and-butter issues that Republicans think they can use to win women? As a side note, McCain’s gender gap was 13 percent. Romney has not only spent time railing against planned parenthood but taking “severely conservative” positions on issues of importance to hispanic women.
During the primary, Romney — who has described his record as “severely conservative” — has touted his opposition to abortion rights, backed legislation to allow some employers to deny health insurance coverage for contraception, and said he would stop funding Planned Parenthood, a women’s health organization that provides cancer screenings, routine examinations, and abortion services.
Romney’s problem with Hispanic voters is even more pronounced after he rejected proposals to allow illegal immigrants a path to legalization, including a bill known as the DREAM Act to let undocumented residents brought to the country as babies or young children obtain citizenship if they attend college or join the military. A poll released last month by Fox News Latino found Romney’s support among likely Latino voters at 14 percent. Obama had the backing of 70 percent of respondents in that poll.
And the most recent Gallup poll conducted March 25-26 found Romney trailing the president among independent voters, 40 percent to Obama’s 48 percent.
“Obviously you have to close the gender gap some, and we definitely need an active campaign in the Hispanic community,” said Charlie Black, a Republican campaign strategist who is advising Romney. Romney also needs to spend time, he added, “cleaning up a little bit of any negative perceptions that were created in the primary — and of course, you have to go back and check and make sure your base will rally around you.”
So, can Mr. Etcha Sketch change any one’s mind given that the Republican convention is going to have its socially radical agenda front and center for all to see? Gingrich and Santorum are not going quietly into the night even though they have stopped winning elections. It will be interesting to see how women, GLBT, Hispanics, and the black communities react to Tea Party hysteria on prime time TV. As an independent woman, I can say I am not happy with the lack of support given women by the Democratic party, but the Republicans are now scaring the living daylights out of me. My daughters and I are not livestock or insects and the obvious orchestrated attack on our rights is not all in our heads or the political strategy of the DNC.
The War on Science and Fact-based Reality
Posted: April 4, 2012 Filed under: abortion rights, religious extremists, Republican politics, Republican presidential politics, Voter Ignorance, War on Women, Women's Healthcare, Women's Rights 10 Comments
What does it say about a country where a large segment of the population works to enact laws and policies that are openly hostile to scientific thought and findings? Hand-in-hand with the war against public education and civil rights has come a war on science. It relies on billionaire-funded ideological think tanks, ignorant and hateful media blovaiators, and fundamentalist religions. What is so scary about modernity and scientific findings that a large number of states want to make it illegal?
Evolution is as an accepted theory among biologists as global warming is among scientists who study climate. The idea that a fetus is viable before the third trimester or can feel pain early in development is a view only held outside the medical community. Why is it that scientists and their life long research are held in less esteem than ideological and theological wishful thinking?
Here’s some great examples of how one major political party is the party of the Age of Unreason.
Tennessee has decided to refight the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) announced yesterday that he will “probably” sign a bill that attacks the teaching of “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning” by giving broad new legal immunities to teachers who question evolution and other widely accepted scientific theories. Under the bill, which passed the state legislature last month:
Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.
Although the bill is written to seem benign, as it neither specifically authorizes the teaching of creationism nor permits teachers to do more than criticize scientific theories “in an objective matter,” the practical impact of this bill will be to intimidate all but the heartiest of school administrators against disciplining teachers who preach the most outlandish junk science in their classrooms. Because the bill provides little guidance as to what constitutes an “objective” criticism of a scientific theory, any principal who reigns in teachers who force creationism or Pastafarianism upon their students risks finding themselves on the wrong side of the law.
In reality, of course, there are few, if any, “objectively” valid objections to the theory of evolution (or, for that matter, to global warming). Rather, as Travis Waldron explained when this bill passed a legislative committee nearly a year ago, “Scientists have reached a consensus that evolution is ‘one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science,’ and as such, it is ‘a core element in science education.’”
This is seriously ridiculous given that molecular biology and the associated field of genetics as well as the fossil record have provided more and not less evidence on the Theory of Evolution. What’s next? Denying gravity?
Nebraska and other states have banned abortions after 20 weeks under all circumstances. That even includes situations where the pregnancy will never result in a live baby or healthy mother. So much for the lie of small, unobtrusive government.
Danielle Deaver was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke and doctors gave her a devastating prognosis: With undeveloped lungs, the baby likely would never survive outside the womb, and because all the amniotic fluid had drained, the tiny growing fetus slowly would be crushed by the uterus walls.
“What we learned from the perinatologist was that because there was no cushion, she couldn’t move her arms and legs because of contractures,” said Deaver, a 34-year-old nurse from Grand Isle, Neb. “And her face and head would be deformed because the uterus pushed down so hard.”
After having had three miscarriages, Deaver and her husband, Robb Deaver, looked for every medical way possible to save the baby. Deaver’s prior pregnancy ended the same way at 15 weeks, and doctors induced her to spare the pain.
But this time, when the couple sought the same procedure, doctors could not legally help them.
Just one month earlier, Nebraska had enacted the nation’s first fetal pain legislation, banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation. So the Deavers had to wait more than a week to deliver baby Elizabeth, who died after just 15 minutes.
Of course, the ultimate lunacy is the denial of global warming. Again, many people embrace the preachings of phony, industry-sponsored propaganda businesses instead of the scientific findings of the research community. What causes this?
They don’t like evolution, they don’t like global warming—none of that stuff. Now a sociologist set out to figure out if that thesis really is true, and concluded that the right in the US is indeed growing increasingly distrustful of science.
Gordon Gauchat of the University of North Carolina published these findings in the forthcoming issue of the American Sociological Review. He looked back at data from 1974 through 2010, and found that trust in science was relatively stable over that 36-year period, except among self-identified conservatives. While conservatives started in 1974 as the group that trusted science most (compared to self-identified liberals and moderates), they have now dropped to the bottom of the ranking.
Chris Mooney–author of The Republican War on Science–has seen this trend as early as the 1970s.
The reason for this, according to Mooney and others, is that the “political neutrality of science began to unravel in the 1970s with the emergence of the new right”—a growing body of conservatives who were distrustful of science and the intellectual establishment, who were often religious and concerned about defending “traditional values” in the face of a modernizing world, and who favored limited government. This has prompted backlash against subjects for which there is broad scientific consensus, like global warming and evolution—backlash that has been apparent in survey data over the past three decades.
Gauchet says this of his study.
“You can see this distrust in science among conservatives reflected in the current Republican primary campaign,” Gordon Gauchat, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Sheps Center for Health Services Research, said in a news release from the American Sociological Association. “When people want to define themselves as conservatives relative to moderates and liberals, you often hear them raising questions about the validity of global warming and evolution, and talking about how ‘intellectual elites’ and scientists don’t necessarily have the whole truth.”
…
“Over the last several decades, there’s been an effort among those who define themselves as conservatives to clearly identify what it means to be a conservative,” he said. “For whatever reason, this appears to involve opposing science and universities, and what is perceived as the ‘liberal culture.’ So, self-identified conservatives seem to lump these groups together and rally around the notion that what makes ‘us’ conservatives is that we don’t agree with ‘them.'”
Meanwhile, the perception of science’s role in society has shifted as well.
“In the past, the scientific community was viewed as concerned primarily with macro structural matters such as winning the space race,” Gauchat said. “Today, conservatives perceive the scientific community as more focused on regulatory matters such as stopping industry from producing too much carbon dioxide.”
As we continue to see laws passed that reflect hostility to education, science, and reality-based research we will undoubtedly see other countries pull ahead of us in a number of areas. This has a number of ramifications for our economy, our ability to impact international conversations, and our future. Now is the time to get rid of the politicians, the supreme court justices, and the media figures who prefer the 19th century to the 21st.
Power, Politics and “Traditional” Marriage
Posted: April 3, 2012 Filed under: Marriage Equality, War on Women, Women's Rights 9 CommentsOne thing that I found during my 20 year marriage was how difficult it was to forge nontraditional dynamics in an institution that’s loaded with societal expectations, rewards, and punishments.
I didn’t think adding a marriage certificate would change relationship dynamics at all. Boy, was I wrong. It’s really hard work to not fall into patterns set up by your parents and the folks that surround you. If you’re not constantly vigilant, the power dynamics seem to default back to some settings that seem more set in forces outside of your control than you’d like to believe. Some times what happens is that one or both people just give up and go with the flow. Frankly, I’ve turned into some one who is not a fan of any kind of marriage because of this. I don’t encourage any woman to get marriage because I feel that the odds are strong she’ll be on the losing side of the power dynamic. The more the traditional the marriage, the more the benefits accrue to men.
I’m not a sociologist, but it doesn’t take one to notice the pressures brought to bear on married couples by their families, their neighbors and the institutions that try to engulf them. It could be parents who expect grandchildren. It could be neighbors that frown on career-centric parents. It could be those folks in the pew next to you on Sunday that insist on definitions of marriage not really found in the bible but thought to be morally correct. Even TV shows and movies send messages to couples. The marriage cult has its own set of peer pressure and expectations that remind me of junior high social dynamics. I’m happy to be free of it all.
That’s why I find this study interesting. The study shows that husbands with stay at home wives have the most narrow views of women’s place in the world. Their views appear stuck in the aberration that was the 1950s-1960s TV family. These also appear to be the people that are more drawn to the Republican party and are responsible for much of what we now call the War on Women. Here’s some discussion of the study.
A recent study by Sreedhari Desai, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that men in traditional marriages with stay-at-home wives had negative attitudes about working women and organizations led by women, and they were more likely to deny opportunities to women.
Desai and her fellow researchers conducted a series of experiments, including one with married graduate students looking for jobs. Those in traditional marriages (that is, one in which the wife did not work outside the home) were much less likely to seek interviews for openings with companies that had higher percentages of women on their board or for which women would be doing the interviewing.
Another experiment asked male managers to pretend to be executives and recommend applicants for advancement, except the two, Diane and David, applicants had the same experience and education.
“Those who were in traditional marriages were less likely to recommend Diane and more likely to recommend David,” said Desai.
This spills over into 2012 as we fight the war on women like some kind of real-life Mad Men reenactment. Desai took a look at her data and found a correlation between her research and today’s headlines.
“One thing that did come through was those men who are in traditional marriages are against giving teenagers access to birth control,” she said.
Recent Polls show that single women and women under 50 are leaving Romney and the Republican Party like they might flee a natural disaster. Yet, Obama is not picking up married women voters in quite the same way.
But the latest polling offers a window into how the ongoing national debate on women’s issues seems to be playing out among female voters — and Democrats and Republicans are taking note of a growing divide between married and unmarried women.
In February, 64 percent of unmarried women said they would vote for Obama over Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, according to a Democracy Corps survey analyzed by Democratic pollsters. Only 31 percent picked the GOP candidate. The gap — 33 points — was 10 points bigger than in it was in January.
Now look at what married women say: 56 percent said they would vote for Romney, and only 37 percent for Obama, with virtually no change from January to February.
So, what are the consequences of men that view women “traditionally”? Again, it appears they are more like to support the kinds of things we’ve seen recently coming up that suppress women’s workplace rights and allow women to control their reproductive choices.
…men who have stay-at-home wives are more likely to oppose women’s rights and have negative attitudes about working women:
We found that employed husbands in traditional marriages, compared to those in modern marriages, tend to (a) view the presence of women in the workplace unfavorably, (b) perceive that organizations with higher numbers of female employees are operating less smoothly, (c) find organizations with female leaders as relatively unattractive, and (d) deny, more frequently, qualified female employees opportunities for promotion. The consistent pattern of results found across multiple studies employing multiple methods and samples demonstrates the robustness of the findings.
By insisting on staying the breadwinners for their families, men seem to also be subconsciously buying into the idea that their wives shouldn’t work. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2010 (as cited in the study), there are more than 11 million men in such arrangements, contributing to a culture opposed to women working. The study suggests that these men might be characterized as “benevolent sexists,” but clarifies they are not likely to be overtly hostile towards women.
Marriage dynamics appear to influence all kinds of political and work place actions. Susie Madrak has some interesting observations to add to mine.
There is an age-old problem with being a woman at home, and it has to do with distribution and claiming of power. The woman’s opinions are too frequently seen as advisory-only (except in the areas traditionally designated to women: children, decor, schools, etc.) and it’s been my observation through the years that women then indulge in covert strategies to assert their power. In other words, “what he doesn’t know won’t hurt him.” So purchases are made in secret and smuggled into the home, much like an “I Love Lucy” episode.
You see a lot of hostage-like negotiation in which the financial hostage (wife) isn’t even aware that she’s conceded her right to partnership power. Instead, she’s focused on wheedling, nagging, cajoling and subterfuge. No way for grownups to act!
A lot of guys like it, though. After all, it’s familiar to them. Their mothers did it (or their mothers didn’t do it, and the sons preferred they had), it seemed to keep the family together, what’s the big deal? The big deal is, one “partner” in this sort of relationship is accepting inferior status. The other partner is agreeing.
Over the past few years, I’ve had male friends mention how much they wished their wives would go to work. “But not a real job,” they’re quick to add. “Just something to help out.” Because if women insist on career jobs, it’s a lot more threatening than a part-time gig at a convenience store, I suppose.
I’ve also known couples where both partners have careers, but the husband makes a lot more money. That person seems to retain the same paternal mindset as if she wasn’t working at all, which is interesting.
I have my own anecdotal evidence to add to Susie’s thoughts. I used to make at least as much or more than my husband until we started our family. I also felt it was important to spend time with the girls when they were young and so throttled back my career path. It coincides to the exact same time that my husband started treating me like some kind of burden who automatically had less of a say in things. When we started out, I would have never thought I’d have wound up in that position, but I did.
I have one last thing to add to this conversation. It’s the evidence that’s shown up in one of the main groups that advocates “traditional” marriage and looks to ban Gay marriages. It shows exactly how much power dynamics are at play in the attempt to keep the institution of marriage narrowly defined.
Last week, a federal judge in Maine unsealed memos from the National Organization for Marriage, one of the most prominent groups fighting against same-sex marriage.
They relate to a case filed over whether the group must disclose the donors that helped underwrite a 2009 ballot initiative that overturned the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage. The group uses its designation as a social welfare organization to avoid federal disclosure, but the memos dispel any notion that the claim has any legitimacy. National Organization for Marriage is a political group, through and through.
The documents brag about its “crucial” role in passage of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage that was overturned by a federal appeals court. They describe the group’s use of “robo-calls” to scare residents in different states away from supporting marriage equality. They talk of a plan to “expose Obama as a social radical,” but the most appalling portions deal with the group’s racially and ethnically divisive strategies.
“The strategic goal of the project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies,” says one memo.
Another stated aim is to manipulate Hispanic voters by making the exclusion of gay people from marriage “a key badge of Latino identity.”
I’m beginning to think this is really a fight to maintain straight male power and privilege more than anything. I’m not sure what’s more threatening. Women opting out of marriage or the gay community opting in.









Recent Comments