Christian man-feminism: allies and misogynists

Recently I’ve found myself called into conversation with the new evangelical feminist movement that has blown up in the last few years. I consider myself an ally, a “man-feminist” if you will. I also consider myself a misogynist, or someone who sins uniquely against women because of things about my manhood. My own particular form of misogyny often manifests itself as my need to be recognized as the hero of Christian feminists everywhere, the anti-Driscoll (Give me my gold star for pointing out all the flaws of other men I already define myself against anyway!). So I wanted to consider what it means to be an ally who is still a misogynist and also to try to translate terms and build bridges for Christian men who burst blood vessels in their foreheads when they hear words like misogyny.

When I was in my early twenties, I found myself in the radical activist community in DC. There was a lot of talk about white male privilege for which my evangelical upbringing paradoxically prepared me quite well. I had no problem saying I’m a filthy sinner. This was just a way of translating that into a slightly different paradigm. White male privilege doesn’t refer to being “guilty” because of your race or gender; it refers to the subtle ways in which you patronize, marginalize, and otherwise sin against other people that have been socialized into you through a historical process in which your gender or race plays a role (as opposed to ways that you sin against other people which are less predictable based on your race or gender).

I don’t think any Christian regardless of what you think about identity politics should be opposed to the use of privilege as a paradigmatic tool for providing greater self-insight and sanctification since all Christians ought to desire being called out and liberated from our sin. Our growing cognizance of our privilege should make us watch ourselves closely for things we say and do that hurt others even if they don’t feel malicious on our part. What makes people angry at identity politics (with good cause in my opinion) is when someone’s race or gender is invoked to silence and delegitimize that person in the absence of any legitimately oppressive behavior on their part. I would narrate this as a variation of the famous Biblical inerrantist line: You’re a rich white guy; you’re wrong; that settles it. It’s identity fundamentalism.

Within a healthy discourse of identity politics, the goal is to become an ally to people who haven’t been taken seriously or treated with dignity because of something about their identity that they didn’t choose. If I were to translate the word ally into Christian terms, the word would be a combination of intercessor, advocate, and servant, with the greatest emphasis on servanthood in the sense that servanthood always connotes putting yourself beneath the other person. Philippians 2:3-4 captures what it means to be an ally: “Do nothing in selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as more important than yourselves. Look not to your own interests, but to others’ interests.”

Our call to servanthood is a call to be allies to people who aren’t being treated with dignity. Your right to talk the way you want to (e.g. “I’m tired of those black people changing their minds about what we’re supposed to call them”) is trumped by the Bible’s command to regard others as more important than yourself. A Christian who really follows Philippians 2:3 should be actively seeking to submit themselves to those who haven’t had a voice, especially if you’re some
kind of “leader” in the upside down kingdom of Jesus Christ.

Now there’s another way in which servanthood puts a check on our motives and approaches to being an ally. The easiest way to be an “ally” is to do so out of “selfish ambition and conceit” by attacking other “fellow oppressors” in order to earn applause for ourselves not out of solidarity but as an opportunistic power play. I’m very good at being an enemy to the enemies of feminism because they’re my enemies too. They all become in my mind the popular jocks who dated (and mistreated) the girls I was “best friends” with in high school.

The test of whether I’m really an ally happens when I’m not putting my man-feminist piety on public display. It’s when I’m sitting on the couch with my wife and she needs my engagement and presence in conversation about a “household issue” that doesn’t involve saving the world by writing the viral blog post that captures the ethos of my generation or whatever. I’m an ally when I take my wife no less seriously than the feminist bloggers with large readerships whose link-backs I covet. I often fail and discover that I’m still a misogynist in practice and an ally in theory.

But I don’t want to end this on a negative note, so I’ll say two things in summary about allies and misogynists. 1) Every ally is still a misogynist. 2) Every misogynist is a potential ally. The point of talking in this way is to recognize that there is nothing categorically different between a wannabe man-feminist like me and Rush Limbaugh or whomever; we aren’t different species of human. It’s a difference in what has been revealed to us in our journey so far. I also think that men in particular need to engage other men with compassion and grace and not as caricature foils off of which we can score our self-justification points (to name one of my favorite hobbies). Jesus did shout down Pharisees in solidarity with the women they judged; this isn’t a call to muzzle any truth-telling. But rather we should tell the truth as evangelists who know that it’s God’s truth and not ours to exploit for selfish ambition or conceit.


28 thoughts on “Christian man-feminism: allies and misogynists

  1. As a Christian feminist, who is married to a Christian feminist, I resonate with what you are saying. I think that it can be easy for all of us to know (and share publicly) the right answers and so very hard to live them in the privacy of our homes. Thanks.

  2. We who would be known as Christians, as you point out, strive to be leaders in servant-hood. Trouble is, that’s the ultimate oxymoron in this world. It’s like when we say Christ is the Servant King. People can’t understand it. It’s almost as if we were speaking in some foreign language. In America servants are greatly despised and kings are greatly admired. No two terms could be more different. You might as well say the brilliant idiot or the giant midget or the holy fool.

    And this semantic confusion is just as apparent in dealing with misogyny.

    But I am also a witness to the ability of this species to change. It is what we do best and it is holy work because this is the work the Holy Spirit does. It changes peoples eyes and then they see the truth. I see it all the time in prison ministry; hardened killers broken like china dolls, like Saul, and finally, like Jesus.

    I had a vision a few days ago. Not some miraculous vision, just an imaginary picture of the future. In my vision the Roman Catholic Church was ordaining women priests.
    Someday, I’d like to see a woman pope. On that day we will know women have made a little progress.

    And in this vision rape was a term people needed to look up because it was such a rare thing that nobody knew what it used to mean. Do you think we will always have rape? We won’t. We will grow in the Holy Spirit to the point where rape is an archaic phrase, like serf and barbarian.

    Or else you don’t agree with me on the meaning of the words “Thy kingdom come on earth”. Surely we can’t imagine rape in God’s kingdom come.

    So to those who think the “pendulum” has swung too far, measure the progress of the feminists by the number of rapes that take place per hour. Call me when it reaches zero.

    Before my vision becomes reality, of course, we Methodists will have to ordain gay men and women. Even if it means splitting with Africa. We can lie to them and keep pretending to grow, or tell them the truth and rely on God.

    We can explain that we ordain liars and adulterers and various other sinners all the time. Up until now just not this kind of sinner, I guess. Just not the sinner who wakes up sexually attracted to his or her own gender and refuses to hate themselves for it. Maybe we think all sinners should hate themselves. In that case we better quit calling this story the Good News.

    We have to ordain sinners. It is all we have. It is what Jesus told us to do. Make disciples. What else can we use but sinners?

    At least we confess to being sinners. Maybe we don’t really mean it, or else we couldn’t be so good at deciding on the sins of someone else.

    We all have a mental fanum veil repair kit. We can find it in the Pride Repair section of our reptilian brain division. It’s part of our secret Denial of the Meaning of the Christ apparatus, and we all have such a thing.

    I do. We only need to shine light on it to see what it looks like, in order to slowly dismantle the damned thing.

      • The fanum is the greek word for the sacred space that was kept from the commoners and only visited by the high priests. It was protected by a veil (I see it as a big red satin curtain) from the unwashed masses. When Jesus gave up his spirit on the cross the veil ripped in two, opening the sacred forever to all humanity.

        I often think we try to reknit the fanum veil when we judge a group of people to be unworthy on any level.

        Our word ‘profane’ is a direct translation of the concept of the fanum. What was pro-fanum in Rome was the unworthy, the poor, women, children, etc.

        It meant, outside the fanum, not worthy to know God. So what we say is profane is what we find unworthy.

  3. If I understand your point correctly, there are lots of different ways to get to the same point via scripture. A thorough application of a ‘least of these’ viewpoint to ones dealing with others should yield the same result. As should ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’ Is that a valid interpretation of your point?

    I like the concept and presentation, but I will admit to a certain queasiness with the ease with which you use the term misogyny. Part of it is pure vocabulary and etymology. Miso implies hatred. I don’t know that what you are describing is truly classifiable as ‘hate’, per se.

    • It might be the case that I’m bending the concept. I’m not sure that every feminist would accept my definition of misogyny; they might say no, you don’t just sin against women; you hate women because you’re a man. My point in defining it as I’ve done is to knock down the fake wall that “progressive” guys put up between ourselves and the Rush Limbaughs of the world in order to justify ourselves by judging others.

  4. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the judgement of the unprivileged means nothing in terms of social injury. When ever discrimination happens – be it from a privileged person to an unprivileged person, or from an unprivileged person to a privileged person, injury occurs because discriminatory behavior is propagated. For example, I define racism as discriminatory behavior based on the race of the individual. It would be just as racist to give someone preferential treatment because they are white as it would be to give someone preferential treatment because they are black. This is EQUALITY: to treat everyone the same as if their race were not a consideration.

    The way to eradicate discrimination and inequality is not to eradicate privilege, but to eradicate discrimination based on privilege. Discriminating based on privilege perpetuates discrimination based on privilege.

    • First, I have been the object of discriminatory behavior from people who were ostensibly “the oppressed.” I left the radical community because I was tired of being the scapegoat as the white guy. Within that world, privilege was inverted since everyone had decided to privilege the people who could claim the most -ism points.

      On the other hand, the problem I have with the generic, individualized way that you’re describing discrimination is that it creates a discourse that presumes the absence of social forces that are bigger than individual choices. By talking in abstraction, you’re framing the problem in such a way that there are no externalities which means acting like we start with a level playing field and we don’t. We are not historically disconnected with the past and there are systemic processes that discriminate even in the absence of individual intentionality.

      Privilege has to do with the set of assumptions that I make about life and other people based on my lack of exposure to the way others actually have to live which causes me to be like the priest and the Levite in my neglect of love for my neighbor. When they saw the wounded man, what they saw was uncleanliness. We do the same thing today when we moralize poverty for example, when we need for it to be the sole product of individual decision-making that happens without a context and an unfair disadvantage at the starting line.

      It’s a reflection of privilege to individualize our assessments of social problems. It’s because I try to substitute myself for the group of people I’m contemplating. In my middle-class context, it is true mostly that if I try hard in school and avoid getting a girl pregnant outside of marriage, I have a very good chance of not being poor when I grow up. But to assume that I can substitute myself for other people who face an entirely different reality and circumstances I don’t think about is what privilege is. I’m not saying that’s what you personally are doing. I’m just trying to frame things in a different way for the sake of explication.

      • Equality doesn’t mean we all have the same circumstances or start the same – it means we all have the same, equal opportunity to work and achieve something better than what we had before. Whether you start as a child of a millionaire, and can use that foundation to better yourself and your family, or you start in poverty, and work hard to achieve a higher quality of life than you had before, each had the opportunity to make things better, and therefore each are equal.

        Morgan, you said, “It’s a reflection of privilege to individualize our assessments of social problems. It’s because I try to substitute myself for the group of people I’m contemplating.”

        This is very Marxist. Have you read a lot of Marx? A lot of your views on privilege sound identical to what he believed. Marx said you have to sacrifice your individualism for the collective, and said Judaism and Christianity needed to be abolished because it promoted the individual above the state. This is the logical end to that way of thinking. Ultimately, communist philosophy tries to place man above God.

        For example, read:

        There is a reason Saul Alinsky’s book “rules for radicals” is dedicated to Lucifer – “the original radical who was at least successful enough to gain his own kingdom. “

        • No it’s not Marxist. It’s agreeing with Paul that our struggle is not against flesh and blood but with powers and principalities, ie social realities that are bigger than any one person. Our biggest challenge growing up in America is that the highest virtue is self-reliance which is precisely the eternally isolating idolatry that Jesus saves us from. It’s when you try to create a theology that has left the Bible behind in bending over backwards to accommodate American supposedly “conservative” but more accurately suburban values that we end up with the mess we have in evangelicalism.

      • I’ll openly cop to being a card-carrying leftist. So, take it with a grain of salt when I call hogwash.

        A millionaire’s child and a pauper’s child do not experience equality simply because both are offered “the chance to make things better.” If, after a lifetime of equal effort, each child had the potential to improve their circumstances by the same arbitrary amount, you could argue that they were equal. If, after a lifetime of equal effort, each child had the potential to improve their circumstances by the same arbitrary factor, you could argue that they had equal opportunity.

        The unfortunate reality is that the better your initial circumstances, the easier it is to move forward. At some level of wealth, it becomes self-perpetuating, and requires active mismanagement to keep from improving. From some starting points, it requires enormous amounts of effort simply to avoid going backwards. To speak of true equality of opportunity between those extremes is a little ridiculous.

      • Poverty subverts personal liberty by depriving of choice. When clinging to life itself is a vigorous struggle, the pursuit of happiness is little more than a fairy tale. And, I suppose, that does presuppose a certain consideration of materiality, in that the body has certain material needs.

        Christ came that we might have Life, and that more abundantly. Where the spirit is, there is Liberty. The Joy of the Lord is my strength. These things, I will agree are not material, but don’t look at me and tell me with a straight face that these are references to the same Life, Liberty and Happiness to the Founding Fathers claim I have an inalienable right.

        “Equal opportunity to work and achieve something better” applied as a philosophy with no material component is nothing more than so much pablum.

      • Morgan, I get that from what he said by the fact that he focuses entirely on the material realm (ie wealth, money) as if it were the whole of a persons life. You don’t have to have money to have joy and happiness. You don’t need to be rich to see and appriciate beauty. You don’t need money to experience love. These things are immaterial.

        David H, I DO think that is exactly what the founders meant. They had just come from a country that spent its time protecting the wealthy landowners above all else. They could have said our aspirations were land ownership and income equality, but they left that out. They focused on the simple basics that transcend income level – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They knew that these were much more important than wealth. These things were the true riches.

        We live in a nearly hopelessly materialistic culture. We accepted it as the foundation of our core beliefs when we began to throw God out of civic society.

        • “You don’t have to have money to have joy and happiness. You don’t need to be rich to see and appriciate beauty. You don’t need money to experience love. These things are immaterial.” When I say the word privilege, this is what I’m talking about. If you’re living in the ghetto in a crowded apartment with 15 members of your extended family and you’ve had to choose between paying your rent or buying groceries, then fine. Otherwise, you’re a modern-day Marie Antoinette saying, “Why can’t they eat cake?” I don’t fault you for your lack of direct exposure to poor people if that’s the issue. I didn’t know a lot of things until I became a youth pastor for inner city kids.

          When you have to sleep on the floor because there are too many people in your apartment for you to get a bed, then it’s kind of hard to be well-rested and alert in your first-period class at 7:15 in the morning. You probably didn’t do your homework for first period either because between your eight year old cousin blasting the TV and your uncle’s reggaeton on the radio, there wasn’t a quiet place in your apartment to concentrate. Also you probably had to work a few hours in the evening to help your mom prepare food to sell at the local flea market which is the most money that anybody in your household makes (you also have a part-time job at a local convenience store where the manager has overlooked the fact that you’re 13 and not old enough to work legally). And you might have gotten smacked around the night before by your step-dad who has fallen into depression and alcoholism because he got laid off from the construction company and the landlord is tired of his delinquent rent payments. Oh and then there’s the fact that you don’t have any food in the fridge…

          It’s quite easy to talk about “the simple basics that transcend income level” when you don’t have to worry about these kinds of things. Seriously, get to know some poor people personally. Don’t just volunteer in a situation where you keep the latex gloves on like a soup kitchen or whatever. Find a way to enter into real relationships with poor people and try to understand what they deal with. You’ll see that they’re not purely helpless victims; they make dumb choices just like we do; they also face tremendous obstacles that aren’t their fault. That’s your homework assignment. 😉

          • My dad raised a family of 5 on less than $28k a year (as an inner-city bus driver). He thought it was a priority that he work to allow my mom to stay home with us kids – a job she loved, and still loves. She’s 60 years old now, and was recently trying to convince my dad (who is now 70) that they should adopt another child (my youngest brother is adopted). Being a mom is what she loves, and a mom is all she’s ever wanted to be. I never had new clothes my entire life until I got my own job – everything was thrift stores and garage sales. My mom is very proud of the fact that she could spend less than $5 and get a season’s worth of clothes for her kids. I can count on 1 hand the number of times we ate at restaurants in my entire childhood. My dad taught me the value of a hard work ethic and the importance of self-reliance. I never set foot in a public school until my senior year in high school. I was home-schooled half of my school career, and went to private school the other half. (how my dad managed to send 3 kids to private school on his salary was a feat in and of itself). We never – ever – had luxuries. But what we did have was 3 square meals a day (we raised rabbits and hunted deer to keep the freezer full), a reliable roof over our heads (my dad did all the work of maintaining himself) and clothes on our backs. And we had each other, and a lot of love. I never knew we were poor. We lived in Minneapolis itself (within the city limits of Minneapolis itself, not a suburb). In my adolescence we moved further from the city, but still in the heart of the urban area. When I was in high school, my dad finally had had enough of the inner-city (after being beat up by an unruly passenger on his bus route) and he quit his job as a bus driver (which he had done for 25 years) and tried his hand at turkey farming for 5 years. However, farming proved to be too physically demanding for him, so he is now semi-retired a drives school bus in rural Wisconsin.

            I went to a tech college, and I worked hard and got a 2 year degree. I was into computers, so I decided to focus my energy on IT related field. I now earn twice what my dad ever earned. My twin brother – who is also in the IT industry and never finished his 2 year college – is nearly earning 6 figures now in Texas. I bought my house outside the Minneapolis suburbs (further away than the suburbs) because I don’t want to raise my family in the same zones of crime and poverty I was raised in (and out as far as I am, the cost of living is dramatically lower than in the city or the suburbs). I live in a place where you can still leave your doors unlocked.

            My brother and I pulled ourselves out of poverty, and all it took was a loving, stable family. These immaterial qualities were present in our household because our my family’s strong foundational faith in Jesus Christ. We believe the Bible and live our lives by it’s values. Even though I never had any of the material things the “other kids” my age had, I never felt slighted or disadvantaged. I can remember the first time someone told me that I couldn’t be or do all I ever dreamed of – a teacher at the public high school I went to my senior year.

            So don’t tell me what an inner-city kid can and can’t do. I used to be one. These people don’t need a hand up, a hand out, or more material wealth. Their quality of life is not dependent on the material … but rather on the immaterial. They need to know Jesus.

          • Thanks for sharing your story. How did your dad send three kids to a private school on $28,000 a year? Did you have support from extended family?

          • Like everything else, they shopped around and eventually found schools that were dirt cheap. One of the Christian schools we went to for several years was a 1 room school 5 blocks from our house in Minneapolis that had 14 students that ranged from K to 9th grade. I asked my dad about it once, and he said it was a priority that we not attend the public schools, so they made sacrifices. My dad is not the kind of man who would ask for or accept support from anyone. Before he was saved, he was a biker, drug dealer, alcoholic, womanizer, etc. He’d experienced life with absolutely nothing, and knew how to make due with very little. Before driving bus for a living he drove tractor trailer and was a mechanic… so he would buy our vehicles for scrap (less than $100) from a junk yard and keep them running for years. He was the original McGuyver and I’ve literally seen him fix a car that didn’t run with wire and duct tape. He practiced the barter system… he did all the car mechanic work for people in our church in exchange for things… for example, he maintained a car for a guy at church, and in exchange, this guy did all my dad’s taxes. He accomplished a lot on the barter system.

          • I wish the private schools around here were dirt cheap. $28K would maybe cover annual tuition for my two boys.

  5. Morgan, as I read through a lot of these blogs you’ve written, and especially this one, I can’t help but appriciate your transpearant struggle with finding yourself, and how you relate to the “world” (in the Christian sense meaning ‘the secular world’) and what relationship this has with how you fit within the Kingdom of God. It is refreshingly open.

    If I may be bold, allow me the grace to offer my perspective as I understand it, and please feel free to tell me to take a long walk off a short pier if need be.

    I do subscribe to the notion that God created men and women with differences that transcend environmental and cultural influence. I don’t see these differences as inequalities, even though many in our society would reject the idea of gender roles as inherently discriminatory. Take for example, a football team (perhaps the “jocks” you mentioned). Each position has a role to play that is important, and if a player ignores their assignment, it could lead to the collapse of the play. I would not say the players are unequal because they play different positions, though each player has talents and physical attributes that make them excel in certain areas and not suited for others (a 185 lb wide reciever makes a poor offensive lineman, and a 350 lb lineman makes a poor wide reciever).

    The Bible uses the metaphor of the body saying a hand shouldn’t say “I want to be an ear”.

    What I see with feminism is that, in the righteous struggle for equality, the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. Rather than celebrate the diversity and talent and physical acumen that makes each of us excel in a God-designed role, the mantra has gone from “we are equal to men” to “we can do anything a man can do” to “men should be more like us.”

    To carry the sports analogy forward, the wide reciever went from “I just want equal salary” to saying “I can play any position” to saying “we should all be receivers like me.”

    For example, a woman who says her husband should love her unconditionally, even when she’s in a bad mood, or gets some wrinkles or gains a few pounds, yet insists her husband is a chauvinist if he says he needs her unconditional respect.

    But here is what I see – as our society struggled to right a true wrong – the inequality of women – it has overshot the mark and is now inflicting the same discrimination against men that it once held agaist women. Rather than saying we are different, yet equal, and that’s ok, many feminists have felt it necessary to put down men and our needs in order to promote the truly noble goal of equality.

    We are now seeing men be more effeminate as they try to fit themselves into the new feminist role. They conflate love and respect, trying to satisfy their need for respect within the “all you need is love” framework.

    Morgan, if I take an honest, objective look this blog post, I see you expressing your need for respect. You want to be a protector, you want to be recognized for your insights, and you are tring to find where you fit in as you seek to formulate the hierarical structure of feminism – the philosophy you ultimately recognize as the position of power, control, and authority in modern society. You internally seek a conquest over your “enemies”.

    Maybe I am the proverbial hammer to whom everything looks like a nail, but from my perspective it seems like you are expressing every typical male need, while trying to conform to the feminist ideal of equality.

    Perhaps we as men and women are not wrong – we’re just different, and maybe thats ok. Maybe we can each celebrate our unique differences rather than trying to conform one another to our own standard. Perhaps true equality is simply being ok with one another’s differences.

    • It does sound a little bit like the proverbial hammer issue. The feminism I embrace is really nothing more than servanthood proactively directed at empowering and giving voice to women. It doesn’t really have to do with whether they benchpress 300 pounds or fix car engines or anything else. Sure women are different from men. I’m not sure what you’re reading that claims otherwise; it seems like a straw man. The question is whether as a man, I’m aloof to the ways that I’m not listening to women. To acknowledge that I have been socialized with a sense of entitlement and privilege as a man doesn’t feel like persecution to me; it feels like being given another tool to battle Satan. I’m not sure why there’s a need for servanthood (being an ally) to be paternalistic (being a protector). The line I can’t cross in terms of my relationship with my wife is to say I know what’s best for her better than she does. If being a protector means standing up for her in a way that isn’t about asserting my power over her, then sure, I’m in. I do things that are complementarian, I suppose, in terms of helping us identify decisions we need to make, but it’s always with an egalitarian heart. There’s never a need to say, by the way, I’m in charge. Why would a Christian ever need to say that in any context? God is always in charge and we are simply obedient servants of His listening for His will together.

      • I agree with you regarding one being an ally to the less fortunate and downtrodden, and what you are saying about servanthood and humility. However, I don’t think you are using a consistent definition of feminism as most (female) feminists would understand it. I’m not trying to say you subscribe to the idea that a woman should bench press 300 lbs, I’m saying that many actual feminists do, and no matter how you have re-imagined it to make it jive with your moral code, it is ultimately just a mechanism for integrating feminism and Christianity.

        So my question may be posited in this way: do you think it is possible for an unprivileged person to be racist, sexist, or discriminatory?

        • Which feminists do you know who think that way? I’m basing my definition on hanging out with some pretty radical hard-core feminists. I think you’re dealing with a mythological projection. Sure it’s possible for an unprivileged person to judge others unfairly based on categories; if there’s no privilege though, then their judgment means nothing in terms of causing social injury to the other person. If they have the power to exclude the other person socially based on their prejudices, then they’re operating from a position of privilege by definition.

  6. “The easiest way to be an “ally” is to do so out of “selfish ambition and conceit” by attacking other “fellow oppressors” in order to earn applause for ourselves not out of solidarity but as an opportunistic power play.”

    Morgan, I was seriously going to e-mail you a similar question about how I should treat a certain Christian friend of mine who speaks about other people in ways which disturb me, but now I have a challenge from you!

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s