Can men be feminists?

Kinda like can white people fight racism? It is a rhetorical question and an age old one, but what do we think?
via Majikthise.
I am impressed with Majikthise’s positivity and although I agree with her on some level, I still find many people that attempt to build allies with *oppressed* communities to be short-sighted of the baggage they bring themselves. For example, several of the white teachers in my school who have been there for a long time and are very committed, yet say the MOST racist stuff in the teacher lunch room about the predominantly black community that I teach in. But let me not digress.
In light of last weeks Duke post and the ensuing flame war (with a round-up post to come), I am questioning so many of these things and what it is we need to do to build allies across difference. We have the greater context of culture in the West, where our media is still dominated by racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism… In the face of overarching issues it is much easier to talk, build, move. It is when we turn the mirror on our selves that the problems arise. That we notice the problems imbedded in our own movements. The racism in feminist circles or the sexism amongst *progressive* men or the sheer elitism of academia verse grass-roots resistance.
We all fall along these lines so at what point do we build alliance? And how do we do it? Can people outside of oppressed groups understand and work with people from within those groups? And what about those of us that don’t fall into just one group, what then? huh huh?
(And let me just say on some level I have to believe they can, or I won’t be able to get up and go to work tomorrow, but that is a whole other issue.)
ps-troll me and i delete you.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

71 Comments

  1. Thomas
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, I see that you have managed to keep your post short so as to avoid grammatical errors. However, even in your brief missive, you have made a factual error. The “New Left” did not begin in 1968. Many folks date it, in the U.S. at least, to the founding of SDS with the Port Huron Statement in 1962.
    If you’re going to spend so much energy raging against the 1960s, you might as well know something about what happened.

  2. TheTruth
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    Samhita, I’m sorry, but you are coming off as slightly irrational (from my perspective).
    First of all, you say that in order for someone to be racist, they have to hold a position of power in society. And since women and minorities are completely powerless in this White Supremicist Patriarchy that we all live in, that means that it is impossible for white males to be victims of either Racism or Sexism.
    This is completely UNTRUE!
    Women hold PLENTY of possitions of power in our society.
    Likewise for racial minorities.
    And -GASP- even women who are members of racial minorities.
    The third most powerful person in the Executive Branch of the United States Government is a black female. She was preceded by a black male. Many of our nations law enforcement officers, our CIA operatives, FBI agents, Judges and Lawyers are women, women of color and minority men. The same is true of our Legislative branch. There are Senators and Representatives in the House who are women, minorites or women of color. Do you maintain that these people wield absolutely no power? I should hardly think so… many of them have a tremendous amount of power with which they can wield, much more so than the average white guy. For you to say that Racism and Sexism is impossible to exact on White Men may have been true in the 1960′s when that idea was first proposed, but is a lot less true now… because now women and minorities do wield a tremendous amount of power. More so than you give them credit for. And as a young feminist, I would hope that you wouldn’t bow to the unfair notion that women and women of color don’t and can not wield power in this society…in fact you should be insulted by the notion…as I’m sure many Black Women would be if you were to tell them that they have no power (because people that have earned the power that they have take a great amount of pride in that power).
    That part of your argument, and your implication that White Men can not be radicals fighting for equality is appalling, and actually kind of sickening. If you were my friend, and you said that to my face, I would probably become quiet, end the conversation politely and leave. Because, the implication is rather not only counter-productive, but also rather insulting.
    I’m sure that you mean well and your intentions are “good”, but the way you started this “discussion” has been combative and divisive rather than unifying as you have claimed to try to be.
    Already we have seen someone team up with you to defend you from comments that I have seen to be very positive and not at all accusatory. Someone asks for you to clarify your position, and they are scolded for asking for too much. You thank them for defending you and you weren’t even being attacked! I have no idea what you are actually trying to say, because you are seemingly being purposefully vague to hide your true thoughts and feelings on the subject.
    If you were truly trying to be unifying, I apologize, but there are better methods to implement. Such as finding out the ways that White Males can help with the feminist movement, and encouraging their involvment in those areas. To totally negate an entire segment of our society in order to further a divisive rather than inclusive agenda just seem to be totally against what feminism is about.
    But, perhaps I’m wrong about what feminism means. In that case I might prefer to not be classified as a feminist.
    Thank you for your time.

  3. Jessica
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    There’s a difference between individual power and institutional power. We all have personal power to a certain extent, but many lack institutional power–which is part of the definition of racism (or sexism or classism).
    So just because Condi has her position in the gov (and btw, people who argue against the existence of racism and sexism often bring her up) it doesn’t mean that women of color have institutional power–they don’t.
    I can prejudge a man–hold certain stereotypes or judge him unfairly–but just makes me prejudiced, not sexist. I don’t have the institutional power to be sexist.

    And as a young feminist, I would hope that you wouldn’t bow to the unfair notion that women and women of color don’t and can not wield power in this society…

    Like I said, we have power, we have agency. But that doesn’t equal institional power. I don’t mean to keep harping on it, but it’s pretty damn important.
    This breakdown is a good one to read, and it gives this definition:
    “prejudice or discrimination based on race, plus the power to enforce it.”

  4. hujo
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Hujo-I never respond to you but I will say this much. Your comments are dumb and they ruin our discussions. They make it impossible to have a safe discussion and quit frankly I don’t care if it hurts your feelings or you think it is unfair. Your comments are stupid and they make no sense. You seem totally uneducated on any of these issues and say shit people say when they have no idea about feminism or any other ism. Read a little get some experience and then try and write something. You and your dumb ass comments are not going to ruin my momentum.
    LOL
    Wow for a dumb guy I really stuck a nerve.
    Do you often get so worked up over the stupid uneducated people?
    I feel American media feeds racial tension by irresponsible conflating racism into any issue where a person of color other than white is present, the white run media. Why would they do that? It sells papers. Where are the concrete examples of racism in the government, other than David Duke? Where are the white men in mainstream culture inciting hatred of minorities? Other than David Chappell exactly who is making a living off of being racist?
    My main point of contention is that hatred of blacks has been studied and received much attention and press, hatred of women has been studied and received much cultural attention, hatred of men or white men, is not studied, so sorry to invoke your academic elitism, but I am forced to empirical study in this area.
    No one is disputing racisms existence, there is no spotlight on racism towards whites, just because mainstream culture does not examine something does not mean it does not exist.
    We can learn from the past but there comes a point when we just start learning how to repeat it.
    You can admit that there is racism and sexism present in the feminist movement, yet you call me a stupid asshole for trying to bring it to attention?
    Perhaps it is attitudes like this that prevent unity from happening?

  5. Posted June 1, 2006 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    Jessica,
    I find this idea of a gender having institutional power interesting. I mean, it seems fairly clear that poor ole grad student me has no institutional power despite being white and male while Margaret Thatcher certainly does.
    Certainly Margaret Thatcher could be a racist, no? And certainly I could be, even though I hope I am not.
    I apologize if you have covered this earlier, but I am late to the thread.

  6. angryleft
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    Patrick,
    I’m not Jessica but I think I have one possible answer. I think the whole point of feminism is that gender does carry with it an institutional power (which does not refer to any ole institutional power, i.e. the institutional power of money, or that of the Head of State of the UK, but a specific form of gendered institutional power… although the different types do tend to be related in a correlational/conditional probability kind of way). I mean, that is the whole point of feminism. So basically when you say “I find this idea of a gender having institutional power interesting,” a feminist would say, well duh. Welcome to feminist thought, hopefully youll learn something while here (and well learn something from you).

  7. An old woman
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    Sure, men can be Feminists! I am married to one. He was the secretary for the Howard County chapter of the National Organization for Women during the 1980s. He still looked great with his (now) white beard and his “This is what a Feminist looks like” tee-shirt in the March for Women’s Lives demonstration.
    “I have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiates me from a doormat.” by Rebecca West 1913

  8. hujo
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    Those with institutionalized power, oppress everyone of every color, they are quite ironically egalitarian in this respect. You and all your children of every color are paying the Iraq war debt and it is not only America but Saudi Arabia and Israel benefiting.
    To constantly conflate privileged and having institutionalized power with white males, implying they all fit into this minority of the white male population is incorrect and irresponsible.
    Anyone that does fight racism/sexism understands that for it to work extreme sensitivity is needed, feminism is extremely insensitive to white males in this regard and I feel this is hurting feminism as the root cause of the white male aversions to it.
    It does prejudge us.

  9. Posted June 1, 2006 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    Angry,
    No, of course your right. But I take the main point of feminism is that institutional power is arbitrarily wrapped up in gender. That is, that nexi of social, political, and economic power are disproportionately and unfairly structurally associated with gender.
    Fair enough, and certainly true. But there is no inherent connection between the two. It a merely contingent social fact about this particular society (and every other, probably) that the two are so connected.
    I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that these structures give me more power than I otherwise would even though I am just a lowly grduate student. The claim I find interesting and a bit perplexing is the claim that Margaret Thatcher doesn’t have the relevant kind of power. She’s was and is certainly more powerful than me.
    What I think is being said is that no individual woman in power can be sexist unless women tout court have (equal? Greater?) institional power, which is an interesting claim, but one that I don’t really understand.

  10. angryleft
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    Patrick,
    Good reply. If that was the claim being made, we’re in the same boat. Also, reading over Jessica’s post, I have to say I’m a bit hesitant at having two distinct meanings of the word ‘sexism’: one which refers to a higher concept derived out of feminist theory, another which is used in common language and can be found in the dictionary. I just think it gets confusing and people tend to misunderstand each other about use of these words when they are conflated in that way. That seems to be happening right here in this thread.

  11. Jessica
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    Patrick, I think you’re right to say that there are some women who wield more power than men (ie., you and thatcher). But one individual woman having more power than an individual man doesn’t address (or negate) the idea of institutional power. I’m not saying that there aren’t women who have access to institutional power–but they are extremely few and far between in the US. So using them as examples doesn’t really change the larger dynamic of institutional power, who has, who can use it, etc. in fact, the right often uses them to argue that sexism (or racism) don’t exist. (see, america can’t be racist, look at condi!)
    Angryleft–I hear what you’re saying and I think you’re right to an extent. I’ve always been frustrated with high theory in feminism because it goes against the idea of a commone language, and feminism being for everbody, etc. I guess my question is then, how we do address the question of power and who has it when we talk about sexism?
    sorry to be rambling, i’m posting from my blackberry at a friend’s bday party in manhattan. i’m obsessed.

  12. Samhita
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    The Truth-
    Whatever dude, I am not here to argue such semantics. Feministing is not a place to debate what feminism is with people that are as far off base as you are.
    Find your discussion elsehwhere? Come back when you can argue at this level of understanding.

  13. Samhita
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    Hujo-
    I am sorry you feel so looked over and marginalized as a white man in feminism.
    So then go somewhere else where you wont feel so *oppressed.*
    It is so deep, you don’t see it and I don’t care enough about you to do it.
    I never said I wanted to build alliance with you.
    Please don’t comment on this thread anymore, I will delete and block you. I am just in that kind of mood.

  14. nonwhiteperson
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    “I also think there’s a big difference between not being a sexist, as a man, and being a feminist.”
    This can be compared to walking on a conveyor belt. Active racism/sexism can be compared to walking fast on a conveyor belt, passive racism/sexism is standing still and active anti-racism/sexism is walking in the opposite direction at a speed faster than the conveyor belt.
    The task of interrupting racism/sexism is not the task of whites/men alone. But the fact of white/male privilege means whites/men have greater access to the societial institutions in need of transformation.
    To whom much is given, much is required.
    As far as teaching whites/men about racism/sexism, it is best they 1) read or listen on their own, 2) decide that racism/sexism are indeed a problem and come to the table after they have done these things. As Audre Lorde said, it is a drain on poc/women’s time and energy to explain racism/sexism to whites/men:
    “Whenever the need for some pretense of communication arises, those who profit from our oppression call upon us to share our knowledge with them. In other words, it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes. I am responsible for educating teachers who dismiss my children’s culture in school. Black and Third-World people are expected to educate white people as to our humanity. Women are expected to educate men. Lesbians and gay men are expected to educate the heterosexual world. The oppressors maintain their position and evade responsibility for their own actions.” (“Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Differenceâ€?, 1984)

  15. Raging Moderate
    Posted June 2, 2006 at 1:59 am | Permalink

    I’m a regular visitor and occasional commenter on this site, and I agree with most of the posts I read here. I’ve noticed that most of the posts I find troubling have been written by Samhita.
    I find that the type of exclusionary feminism (if you disagree with her, you are not a feminist) demonstrated in Samhita’s writings are not helpful to the feminist movement.
    If I didn’t know any better, I’d think she was a spoof of the MRA’s depiction of the “angry feminist”.
    Jessica, you never did let us know what you thought of Samhita’s post about the Duke women’s lacrosse team last week. Is it still in the works?

  16. Posted June 2, 2006 at 2:05 am | Permalink

    TheTruth:And since women and minorities are completely powerless in this White Supremicist Patriarchy that we all live in, that means that it is impossible for white males to be victims of either Racism or Sexism.
    This is completely UNTRUE!

    Of course it’s untrue. That’s the whole purpose for creating strawmen arguments like the one above. Now what would be really interesting is if you could provide some evidence that Samhita claimed that oppressed groups are completely powerless. She certainly didn’t make that claim here so far.
    TheTruth:Do you maintain that these people wield absolutely no power?
    This is illogical. In order for her to maintain this position that you’ve created, she’d have to have held it in the first place.
    TheTruth:And as a young feminist, I would hope that you wouldn’t bow to the unfair notion that women and women of color don’t and can not wield power in this society…in fact you should be insulted by the notion…as I’m sure many Black Women would be if you were to tell them that they have no power (because people that have earned the power that they have take a great amount of pride in that power).
    Why should she be insulted by this notion that you’re discussing? By the way, I’d sure love to hear how you came to be so sure about how “many Black women” would react to hearing someone stating their opinion. As much as WOC constantly hear nonsense spouted from all sorts of sources, if we reacted as you think we would, we’d never have time to do anything else. So, unless you have some facts at your disposal, what’s the use in telling people that you are sure about how others would respond to your strawman argument?
    TheTruth:That part of your argument, and your implication that White Men can not be radicals fighting for equality is appalling, and actually kind of sickening.
    *sigh* Once again, another person fails to read what’s before them and prefers to substitute wishful thinking to take the place of reality.
    TheTruth:If you were my friend, and you said that to my face, I would probably become quiet, end the conversation politely and leave.
    If that’s how you’d react to your friends, then why should a random stranger care about what you’d think of what they say? After all, there’s nothing stopping you from ending your comments to Samhita and quietly leaving.
    TheTruth:Because, the implication is rather not only counter-productive, but also rather insulting.
    Samhita’s post has proven to be quite productive despite your claims. Many people have had no trouble understanding what she wrote and responding to it and even adding to the subject matter that was originally posed. If someone felt insulted by what they saw, it’s a wonder they still choose to continue reading. Certainly everyone who has posted here knows that doing so is completely voluntary.
    TheTruth:I’m sure that you mean well and your intentions are “good”, but the way you started this “discussion” has been combative and divisive rather than unifying as you have claimed to try to be.
    It may not have made you feel very unified with anyone but it certainly evoked such feelings in me. So, there really isn’t any factual basis for your claim that her post was “combative and devisive rather than unifying”. Samhita can’t be all things to all people any more than you can. Perhaps today just isn’t your day.
    TheTruth:Already we have seen someone team up with you to defend you from comments that I have seen to be very positive and not at all accusatory. Someone asks for you to clarify your position, and they are scolded for asking for too much.
    Wow! What are the odds that we’d have two people who seem to believe they are psychic? As a matter of fact, I have never spoken to or even met Samhita. So your conspiracy theory just dissolved like a fart in the wind. I find it absolutely hilarious that adults would actually come here and complain about feeling scolded. I must say, I truly appreciate you taking one for the team with that one.
    TheTruth:I have no idea what you are actually trying to say, because you are seemingly being purposefully vague to hide your true thoughts and feelings on the subject.
    No, you don’t have any idea what she’s saying because you failed to comprehend what she wrote. If the problem was that she was being vague, then everyone else would have been unable to understand her view. Have you noticed the fact that this was not the case?
    TheTruth:If you were truly trying to be unifying, I apologize, but there are better methods to implement. Such as finding out the ways that White Males can help with the feminist movement, and encouraging their involvment in those areas.
    Er, what makes your method better than the one she used? No matter what method she used, there will always be some who prefer a different way. If someone doesn’t like the way Samhita presented her views, they are completely free to find someone who will give them what they are looking for in a package that is more appealing to them.
    TheTruth:To totally negate an entire segment of our society in order to further a divisive rather than inclusive agenda just seem to be totally against what feminism is about.
    Well, it’s a good thing that she never negated an entire segment of society in her post, now isn’t it? Thank goodness such negation only occurred in your strawman.
    TheTruth:But, perhaps I’m wrong about what feminism means. In that case I might prefer to not be classified as a feminist.
    I, for one, would be more than happy not to classify you as a feminist if that’s what you’d prefer. Isn’t that nice and unifying of me? :)

  17. Jessica
    Posted June 2, 2006 at 2:15 am | Permalink

    it’s 2am and i really should be asleep. samhita and i are writing a joint post for this weekend on a lot of the issues that have come up in comments, but have to say this: asking me what i think about samhita’s posts or somehow trying to pit us against each other as good feminist/bad feminist (which seems to be happening a lot these days) is just bullshit.
    like i said in the duke thread–i’ve know samhita for a long time and she is fucking brilliant and i support her in all things.
    i hope when we post this weekend about all this shit, the discussion will move forward in a useful way.

  18. Samhita
    Posted June 2, 2006 at 2:21 am | Permalink

    I deleted comments that I don’t think are productive for discussion.
    If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. Do you really think Jessica is not going to back my choices?

  19. Samhita
    Posted June 2, 2006 at 2:30 am | Permalink

    Dude, just stop. The fact that you could even think that I could *abuse* power to extend this detrimental white male guilt is just ridiculous. And beyond the fact that the point was brought up over and over that I never even did what you accuse me of, it is your inability to see that you are putting that on me, is just annoying…
    Troll or no troll, this is not the point of the discussion and I do indeed have the right to moderate comments ON MY OWN BLOG!
    Get your own blog, if you need to get this shit out, it helps, it really does.

  20. Samhita
    Posted June 2, 2006 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    So I shut off comments because they were crap, but I realize that there were people that were having really productive discussion as well. If you have comments you want posted to this thread, just email them to me and I will post them.
    Thanks.

  21. puckalish
    Posted June 2, 2006 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    TheTruth,
    Samhita gets this a lot from folks who are desperately trying to hold
    onto their privilege on this site. But this isn’t a phenomenon that
    just happens to her or just happens here. It happens to various sorts
    of people (in this case, particularly, women of color) all the time
    in order to invalidate and marginalize their very real analyses and
    observations.
    She’s really very brilliant and I’m sorry you can’t see that
    brilliance because you’re too blinded by being convinced that she’s
    wrong. In fact, you’re so convinced that she’s wrong, you’ve invented
    wrong arguments for her, as Bint has so thoroughly pointed out.
    Read over the comments again, read my first post, for example, where
    I state that, while everyone practices small acts of racism and
    everyone benefits and is harmed by racism, white people gain the most
    and lose the least through racism’s intricate oppressions. That’s
    what Sami was talking about, not that all whites are consciously
    bigots or that African Americans or Hmong or Latinas don’t hold
    prejudices. Regardless of our prejudices, we all have different
    stakes in the system – and when I’m disproportionately benefitted by
    an oppressive system, it rightly undermines other people’s trust in me.
    To claim that white people are just as affected by racism as black,
    latino, chicano, asian, pacific islander or indigenous american or
    australian people is completely off base. To try to back that
    argument up by bringing up anecdotal evidence of a few people with
    power is a decoy. You want to talk about the government of this country?
    According to Wikipedia, “In the
    109th United States Congress women hold 67 of 435 (just over 15%)
    seats in the House, and 14 of 100 (14%) seats in the Senate” and “The
    Senate is 1% African American and the House is roughly 9.2% African
    American… The Senate is 3% Hispanic and the House is approximately
    5% Hispanic…. There are 4 Asians and Pacific Islanders in the US
    House and 2 in the Senate.” Is that representative of the population
    of the country? Even vaguely?
    According to the 2005 CIA World Factbook, the United States
    is 49.23…% female, so a 15% representation is not quite right.
    Also, the US is 12.9% African American, 4.2% Asian, and 0.2% Pacific
    Islander. They don’t report on Hispanic/Latino/a/Chicano/a because,
    they say, there are overlaps with White, Black and Asian populations.
    However, their numbers are pretty, well, authoritative, if nothing
    else. And when was the last time we had a woman (or person of color
    or even a jewish) president (or vice president)? Condoleeza Rice
    (you’re token Black woman in power) herself, according to Wikipedia,
    “Rice states that growing up during racial segregation taught her
    determination against adversity, and the need to be ‘twice as good’
    as non-minorities.”
    So women really don’t hold “PLENTY” of positions of power in our
    society. Just because there are more women in positions of power than
    there were in 1860 doesn’t mean we’re even close to parity. Further,
    as mentioned above, individuals in power do not necessarily represent
    the populations of which they are a part.
    And if you want to talk about professions, my mother’s an attorney,
    and she left three firms because less experienced men who weren’t
    working as hard as her were making partner as she got turned down
    time after time. Now, she works for nuns, who are, in my experience,
    the oldest “wave” of feminism around (particularly missionary
    sisters). She had to work harder, longer hours than men to get less
    recognition than them and she’d be disgusted if she were used as an
    example of how sexism is a thing of the past.
    Further, you trying to put forth that you and noname didn’t come out
    of the starting blocks looking for a fight (“Consider the can of
    worms OPENED!”, “Samhita, I don’t mean to pick on your post
    specifically…”)
    I want to let you know that this phenomenon makes me sick to my
    stomach for being a white man. Primarily, because you so easily
    denigrate and disrespect a woman of color simply because she’s a
    woman of color. For how long has it been going on that white people
    and men have been telling people of color and women that they’re
    “irrational”, “insulting”, “combative”, “divisive”, and “totally
    against what [insert whatever here] is about”? And then you have the
    gaul to speak for “Black Women” like you have any idea what a black
    woman thinks. I also love how you’re using black women as your iconic
    anti-racist totem. I mean, you tell a woman of color that she has no
    right to speak for other women of color (even though she’s just
    speaking for herself) and then you decide you have the right to speak
    for women of color?
    Before you go ahead and try to tell me that you never said the things
    you said just because Sami’s a woman of color, check this out: she’s
    been, up until very recently, the only woman of color writer for
    feministing and she’s the only one to get these sorts of insults
    hurled at her. When Nubian, of blac(k)ademic, wrote for Alas, she was
    assailed with the same vitriol, etc. etc. Perhaps you and folks
    who’ve exhibited the same behavior aren’t coming at it with a
    conscious intent to deride women of color, but the end product is all
    the same. Women of color who are demonstrably intelligent, well-
    learned and rooted in real action-based organizing are being called
    out for being ignorant, simple and for harming “the cause”. That’s
    just not right.
    It really dashes a lot of my hopes that there’s going to be real,
    substantive progress toward a more loving and peaceful world.
    Especially because you appear to be (or see yourself as) a very
    “progressive” person, whatever that means – and yet you reproduce the
    same bullshit that’s been going on for centuries. And i’m not talking
    about the duke case here, i’m talking about belittling the
    intelligence of a woman who is working her way through a Master’s
    program where she’s at the top of her class because she represents a
    perspective oppositional to your own privilege. And the crap that’s
    been said on here, lately about trying to pit Jessica against Sami
    (like that’d every happen anyways) is some bullshit – props to Jessica
    One last thing – my heart has really been lifted by the support
    that’s come out from folks like Bint, Vegankid, BFP, Nubian,
    NonWhitePerson, etc. That’s what this whole information technology is
    all about – coming together. So let’s use it like we mean it.
    Peace and blessings,
    puck

174 queries. 0.562 seconds