Women Crave Leaderhsip?

There are several overlapping memes in the manosphere about women and leadership. The game and PUA crowd (I do not presume to speak exactly to anyone’s iteration of these things, only generally and loosely) would hold that men, by asserting themselves as dominant and aloof (I know, I know…too simplistic) women will naturally respond because that is what women want. It is what they crave. We can agree that we mustn’t let women tell us what they want, we must witness what they do and decide for ourselves. That code is well broken.

The Christian manosphere would have that women crave leadership from their husbands. Female writers are straight up saying we should not listen to women because most of what they say is “poo”. We should plow right through the nonsense and lead. Male writers including Dalrock have chimed in repeatedly echoing this sentiment that women crave male leadership. Because I respect his opinion and have eaten crow prepared by him before I have to allow that we may be speaking parallel lines that cannot contradict one another because they never intersect. Or, we disagree, and I have some more explaining to do.

The dialog has grown lengthy at Dalrock’s regarding whether or not women crave leadership. I say no. I ask, why would someone designed with built in rebellion, as we all are, be craving leadership? And if they do, why is the perfect leader not openly and visibly manifesting as Lord of their lives en masse?

This image of the quirky woman with her sometimes desire to rock the boat but deep down virtuous has disturbed me for some time. It disturbs the same nerve as the claim that gaming a woman means you are in control of the frame. Neither completes the picture. But one of those two things has at least a stated honest goal regardless what anyone thinks of it, values wise.

Women generally have a tempest in their thoughts, and an unknown (even to them) goal to their actions that is purely emotionally experiential. Its how women are made, and as Cane Caldo always points out….that is good. There is a purpose behind all of this. Some call it a plan. But the participants are only willing in the sense that they signed up as believers in the grander scheme.

I can at the same time decry the slippage in men’s responsibility and the rebellion of women against men, even men who are doing things well. All that is still good. But as individual parts, a woman is no more craving male leadership than a single man is craving a monogamous sexual relationship with an aging wife. For that to be the state of a given man means he has himself submitted to a higher calling and pushed his cravings aside. So much the same with women and submission. If she is in submission, she chose to be so against her nature and the contentment that comes with men and women thus submitting is God given contentment. It is not born of quenching some hidden desire that is good but for the inadequacy of someone else.

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Women Crave Leaderhsip?

  1. Empath:
    Women crave leadership alright: as long as that means that they have 100% of the power over sex, reproduction, and marriage/family life. If they really wanted male leadership so badly they wouldn’t be destroying their families in divorce courts and chasing moronic thugs like they do. They also wouldn’t have frequent-customer discount cards at every abortion clinic.

    Dalrock is and always has been a highly woman-centered writer. Nearly all his commenters anymore are female, and it’s easy to see why. He tells them what they want to hear.

  2. This can be answered with simple addition of one word just like all of the others.

    Women want an ATTRACTIVE leader.

    Women want an ATTRACTIVE Christian man to be her husband.

    So yes, women crave leadership… but only to man who is attractive to them. A man whose frame/masculinity/dominance over her.

  3. To further clarify…

    Women crave leadership of a man who is attractive to her OR alternatively one who is worthy for her to submit to — one who passes her fitness testing.

  4. Men are the guardians of morality. We should lay down the law whether the women like it or not. The method employed by JoJ demonstrates this truth.

  5. No, Deep Strength. Empathological is right on all counts.

    My husband is strong. He is very physically attractive. I could take a vote of the women at TC (and recently Sunshine) and they would all confirm the latter of those two statements. I feel very passionately about him and I have submitted to his leadership.It is often a relief and over the years I have grown to appreciate the wisdom of it.

    But I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that deep down I’d much rather do whatever the heck I want without having to answer to him first. Who the heck craves anything else?

  6. Trying this again:

    No one craves to do the right thing. we’re born in sin and shaped in iniquity, the lot of us.

    What happens as we grow in grace is that we appreciate the wisdom of God’s design, and it becomes easy to do the right thing because we want to please him. We still don’t crave submission, but we do it with joy (most of the time).

    @ Deep Strength:

    Attractive husband or not, we all desire to be free to do what we want when we want. Including me. It’s human nature.

    Is that better?

  7. Women want an ATTRACTIVE leader.

    Women want an ATTRACTIVE Christian man to be her husband.

    These are true statements about a veneer. Not about wanting to literally be led.

    Women crave leadership of a man who is attractive to her OR alternatively one who is worthy for her to submit to — one who passes her fitness testing.

    This is precisely what I am refuting. This is an excuse, a rationale for being rebellious, as ifs its grounded in some altruistic quest to find the right one then to make sure he STAYS the right one.

  8. If you don’t mind a woman’s view….

    I do not believe that we are innately good. We are all adamic in nature so a child is born with a selfish view of the world. A solipsistic viewpoint. During our lifetime we can choose to adjust our settings to realise the truth that we are but a vapor. That all is vanity.
    This takes courage.
    It goes against our sin nature.

    If we refuse the truth or are ignorant of it, pride puffs us up and we believe we can do anything if only we knew what!
    When I was a young girl I told my father that I wanted to be the first female President of the United States! Dad told me it would never happen because firstly I’m not American (duh!) and secondly it wasn’t right for a female to lead a country.
    Sin nature versus Truth moment. Ugly collision but a very necessary one!

    Pride is the original sin and is recurring daily here on planet earth.
    Pride does not ‘crave’ leadership.
    Pride desires to usurp authority and to indulge in the flesh.

    So no I do not agree that women ‘crave’ leadership at all. Every one of us is either living in the flesh or the Spirit. But a godly woman will put to death her carnal nature and grow in the fruits of the Spirit.
    Galations 5:17-18
    “For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.”

    A worthy woman is a covenant woman. She knows the marriage covenant is sacred. She accepts and cherishes her role as a helpmeet for her husband and her desire will be for him. She prays for her husband and thanks God for him. She esteems him and speaks highly of him always. She turns the heart of the children to their father. She will be grateful that the responsibility and accountability of leadership is not hers but her husbands and she will do all she can to help and not be a stumbling block for him.
    She will be thankful that the Bible has given her a set of instructions for her to follow that specifically fit her role as a wife.
    She will admire the leadership her husband provides as it is beyond her. It is not her purpose and she knows it. It is between her husband and God.

    In short, I do not think women crave leadership but they can relish leadership.
    It encourages joyful living and that is a delight 🙂

    Great post btw!

  9. I do not think women crave leadership but they can relish leadership.
    It encourages joyful living and that is a delight

    Very true and well stated.

  10. Relish leadership….lets unpack that.

    My narrative allows for one way to relish leadership and maybe not the other (the way you mean). In my narrative relishing leadership is experiencing the drama escalation of fitness testing and the tingles as they are suppressed. You seem to be saying that relishing leadership can be ever present, or nearly. Is it safe to say that a woman prefers that to its lack? I guess yes. In which case that’s about as far as I will go in the direction of relishing it. This relishing thing will be event specific, not a sort of basking generally. One basks in a nice sunny day with a breeze, for long periods of time. They do not on occasion emote at the weather or the comfy chair and challenge them.

  11. This comment by RedPillPaul at Dalrocks is good:

    Women will struggle with, crave, tempted with power. That is woman’s original temptation/sin. Man will a struggle with, crave, tempted by women. That was Man’s original temptation/sin (putting woman ahead of himself and God).

    Women need to understand (maybe they do but pretend that they don’t) as well as men, that men have a tendency to put woman at the top, hence the pedestal.

    The pedestal thing is why men willingly submit to women. This is exactly why maintaining submission is more an act of will for her than an act of dominance for him

  12. Ah, I see what you are saying. Let me take this back then and follow the conclusion logically.

    By eating the fruit and knowing what is good and evil we are tempted by our sinful nature and we become rebellious against God.

    If that’s the case, then if we take off the old self and put on the new then we are making a conscious decision to follow and/or submit to God, despite the lusts of the flesh.

    Therefore, it is the conscious submission which determines our walk with God more than any leadership that God may provide (though we receive leadership from him if we obey his commands). After all, it is we who have the choice to follow or rebel.

    Therefore, the same would apply to the early relationship of husband and wife as God has placed a husband in authority over his wife.

  13. Yes, Empath. A wife can relish her husband’s leadership. It’s not perpetual, but it can happen.

    It is the nature of human beings male and female alike to wish for the freedom to act in their own interests unabated. It is often harder for women due the curse that comes with being Eve’s daughters.

    As improbable as it seems however, Hannah is right.

  14. A very good post, and some great comments. Hannah, very good comment.

    I have to agree with you Empath that the notion of women being naturally rebellious and also craving male leadership at the same time doesn’t make sense. I would argue they crave masculinity, and rebel against a man leading them. However, while they may not crave male leadership, women need male leadership. But that doesn’t mean they crave it.

  15. As for submission, I also agree that it is a woman’s choice, pure and simple. Now, once she has decided to submit, then her husband being attractive might make this easier, but the essential decision is ultimately upon her. If she follows her husband’s lead just because he is attractive, that isn’t submission at all.

  16. The reformers called it Total Depravity. While we may be capable of “good” as we define it, there is nonetheless no aspect of our personality that is not tainted and that is not in need of redemption. You can’t drill down far enough. The Apostle: “I do what I don’t want to do, and I don’t do what I want to do.” This is the essence and definition of sin.

    Men and women have different kinds of awareness; a man says, “to hell with the right/wrong thing; I’m doing it anyway.” A woman says, “if I want it, it must be right.” We are all self-deceived in our own way; a man’s self-deception is more suited to leading a woman whose self-deception renders her incapable of self-examination and incapable of discerning what *is* from her internal script of what she thinks ought to be.

  17. Hannah, Casparreyes, & Elspeth:
    Most people assume that feminists don’t believe in things like female submission and gender polarity because they publically disavow these things. In reality, they know fully well that things are real—and in the laws of Nature—so they try to subvert them with psychopolitics, social engineering schemes, and junk science.

    Women do not ‘crave’ a strong male leader, but it is their natural inclination to seek out, submit to, and mate with such a man. The feminists know that to be a fact, and so they promote and rigidly enforce things like absurdly high AOC laws and also promote delayed marriages—while at the same promote slutting around sexually with losers as ‘sexually liberating.’ They don’t want the young women to follow their inclinations, so they corrupt them. Many here have said that submission must be learned—actually it has to be RE-learned in most cases.

    This is why attempts at male assertion promoted by people like Dalrock, Joseph Jackson, Dennis Rainey, and Mark Driscoll are doomed to failure, since they are all essentially the same approach: attack the symptom rather than the actual problem. Men really can’t do much of anything proactively: women have to throw off their feminist indoctrination and reach out to men again—not vice-versa.

    The same is true of female rebellion, which Hannah connected to the sin of pride. Women are not necessarily MORE inclined to rebel against men, but it has to do with their biological programming to follow groups and their position in the gender polarity. Consider what happens with the negative (submissive) pole of an electric current is blocked: it backflows at increased pressure and causes an explosion. Hence, women don’t necessarily rebel as much as men; but the velocity and after-effects are greater when they do.

    Again, the social engineers understand those principles well, which is why they divide the genders into hostile camps and corrupt men through corrupting the women first. They know that men will tend to follow the women. Had they tried to corrupt men, it would have worked like South America where decades of military and authoritarian rule have so emasculated the male populace that the women seek to marry foreign husbands instead and expat as soon as possible. But this way, they can create as much social chaos as possible, extending into several generations.

  18. I wouldn’t mind a woman having her freedom, if only she didn’t want to take man’s freedom away

    control, that’s what women crave , not leadership

  19. Pingback: Women Crave Leaderhsip? | Feminism is Empathological |

  20. Eric,

    If you “block” any part of a circuit you have an open circuit, and no current at all. This post is a first, not to identify sinfulness, but to get to the scriptural idea that the human heart is completely deceitful. There is no good at the core. We may crave what is good, like the Apostle, but we don’t have the resources in ourselves to attain it.

    I don’t even believe a woman is necessarily at her most rebellious unless she is married; “your desire will be to your husband”. My wife has an instinct for adopting the most submissive behavior yet framing it in such a way as to ensure she exercises control over me. It is insanely subtle; she can’t see it, and she denies it when I point it out. This is my struggle.

    Caspar

  21. My wife has an instinct for adopting the most submissive behavior yet framing it in such a way as to ensure she exercises control over me. It is insanely subtle; she can’t see it, and she denies it when I point it out. This is my struggle.

    You are in good company, in my opinion even the very “best” men have this problem to some degree. If they claim not to, it means she is exceptionally good at it. It is this very thing that started my momentum into the idea that women do not crave leadership.

    Great comment

  22. Empathologism this is a crucial topic. it needs to be examined in detail because it drives right to the heart of things. It does away with the feminist-based excuses that are used to give women a pass. It also does away with the putting the female species into the ‘too hard basket’.

    Women don’t CRAVE leadership at all. They desire to have power. That power was given by God to men and women need to face that in order to accept their place or they will forever be locked into REVENGE mode.

    To me it’s like with children. They push the boundaries to test that they’re there. The limits MUST be there or chaos is inevitable. The earlier this happens the more successful the outcome. Well behaved children that are pleasurable to be around and a delight to their parents.
    The notion that any child is innately ‘good’ seems ludicrous to me but they CAN learn to operate beautifully within their boundaries without constantly ‘testing’ at each and every turn.

    A woman is a vessel that will absorb her surroundings. In this day and age she becomes a septic tank. But with the right tutelage from Titus 2 Women and reading her Bible and obeying her husband’s wishes she can become a worthy vessel.
    A woman needs to accept that she is the weaker vessel. That God has given her a different set of talents but that she needs to be a good steward with what He has given her.

    So when I suggested earlier that women can relish the leadership their husband provides… I meant that such a woman would have journeyed to this place of acknowledging her weakness and propensity to absorb the ‘strongest’ influence around her (husband/family/friends/society).
    She recognises that her husband has a protective skillset given to him by God which keeps her safe from Satan’s temptations.

    Therefore my idea is that married women can FLOURISH under the leadership of their husband.

    So my take is that if women keep themselves accountable to God’s word and apply it to their lives then it WILL become a basking rather than event-specific. She knows the limits and boundaries and lives joyfully within this space because the heart of her husband trusts in her. Does this make sense?

    Great discussion – you’re very perceptive Empath and I admire your search for truth!

  23. Hannah:
    Those are very good points; but I would add that feminism has actually perverted the concept of female power. A woman’s power is in her submission. I mentioned on another blog recently that this can be empirically proven; if you look at the historical epochs which feminists claim women suffered the greatest oppression—these were actually the times when they were most socially valued and had the most power. During historical periods when women were ‘sexually liberated’ their value and social power actually declined—witness how today most men don’t even consider marriage and family as worth bothering with.

    The feminists changed the idea of gender polarity by employing the Marxist Dialect and interpreting gender relations in terms of a class struggle—which leads to the desire for revenge which you spoke of. No less a feminist than Andrea Dworkin said that destroying polarity was feminism’s objective and that equality was meaningless if gender polarity was preserved.

  24. After initially agreeing, I have had to rethink my take on this and to lean toward Deep Strength’s take on the thesis that because of sin, woman’s proper craving for leadership is corrupted to a craving for rebellion. Yes, there is corruption, but corruption works into all things, and who’s to say what form it will take. We still act according to our nature, but corruption is creative, and evil is everywhere, most especially where it appears good.

    The corruption of something doesn’t turn it into its opposite. A corruption of the craving for leadership will not result in a craving for rebellion so much as a corrupted craving for leadership, a craving for corrupted leadership, etc. One can see this in scripture, and one can see it anecdotally, and none of us have to look very far for examples.

    Entirely in keeping with all the discussions here, a woman will follow the leadership that presents itself at the moment as More So©: more authoritative, more assertive, more able to visit consequences, more dangerous, etc. She will disobey her constituted authority (husband) and follow into disobedience an authority that is More So©: pastor, counselor, support group, bible study leader, radio preacher, relationship book, high-status male at the office, exciting thug, etc. Even God, as in “I listen to God, not you.” Jesus as the Eternal Boyfriend sets up husbands to be AMOG’ed by Jesus.

    One group that has come to my attention recently is Eric and Leslie Ludy and their various ministries encouraging “the set apart life”, primarily for young girls, in ways reminiscent of Elizabeth Elliot’s Passion and Purity and Bill Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute — higher living through hyper-spiritual elitist legalism. If I get to it before anyone else, I’ll contribute a review of these people’s stuff; it’s all pretty much like the following. Check out this gag-inducing passage by Leslie Ludy in her book “Sacred Singleness”. My daughters are into this stuff at the moment, and I am going to have to intervene:

    “But as I explained in Authentic Beauty [another of her books]: ‘My true Prince is not Eric. My true Prince is Jesus Christ. Eric, with all his amazing qualities, could never meet the deepest needs inside my heart the way my true Prince has…’ Jesus Christ was not merely a stand-in until Eric came along. Jesus was, and still is, my true Prince, my ultimate Bridegroom, and my all in all…. Though [Eric] is an amazing husband, there will always be moments when he fails, when he falls short of being the sensitive, devoted, picture-perfect prince of my childhood fairy tales.”

    Her definition of husbandly failure: his falling short of her childhood fairy tales. Dangerous shit, this. The man’s failure is having no confidence in his rightful authority, instead following her in her wrongful confidence.

    A woman seeks voices to listen to, but the one voice she needs to listen to is the one she will not listen to. She will trump you and convince herself and you that it is necessary for her own good and yours, for your spiritual growth and for a better marriage (whether to you or to someone else).

    These are a craving for leadership. Tell me it ain’t so.

  25. Caspar I am glad you revisited this post. Something came up in my home recently that set me thinking about this again as well. Before I go into that, let me address a bit of your post.

    First, I do not really see much disagreement here. I agree with what you are saying. When I read this:

    The corruption of something doesn’t turn it into its opposite. A corruption of the craving for leadership will not result in a craving for rebellion so much as a corrupted craving for leadership, a craving for corrupted leadership, etc.

    It appears that I either misspoke and suggested the things you refute here, or you misunderstood me. Of course corruption doesn’t result in a delineated opposite urge. Corruption results in the unpredictable. Corruption could render her a follower at times, if (here is the corruption) it suits an over arching goal of hers….manipulation. Corruption could result in childish rebellion or well considered (in a scheming sense) faux following. All manner of what amounts to chaos vs. consistency.

    Indeed a woman will follow “More So” as you aptly put it. That’s inconsistent, that’s chaos, and I could make the case (and contradict myself inside this response) that that actually is simply put…..rebellion.

    No one has this corruption wrung out of them completely, not you, not me, no one. That’s no excuse though for the wife, it just isn’t. And the crap the quote you posted is promoting is absolutely dangerous hamsterization of the rebellion pig wearing scripture lipstick.

    My wife and I were having a discussion….ok….an argument a few weeks back. My wife has grown into her role over our 23 years, and grown well the last 10 years especially, if my measure is a valid claim. So she claims to me in this argument that she has been a submissive wife. And she starts down some vestige of the churchian training we were steeped in for the first 10 years of marriage, whereby she tells me, BUT, “I crave you be the spiritual leader and you are not doing so”

    Klaxons…..old ground…..alert…..

    I reviewed all my claims about the task master to-do list view of the evangelical feminist and how that is not what being the spiritual leader is. We discussed, again, prayer together, and she went off using, loosely, scripture that kinda sorta backs the churchian view on these things. I basically said that there are things where she disagrees with me, things that we just avoid, and because she was a Christian from childhood, and me not, she likely never will, and on these things we see what spiritual leadership can be made of, or destroyed by.

    I was a little shocked as she played a rhetorical trick on me, saying “well, my first allegiance is to the Lord, and if he is calling me to something, then that supersedes anything a husband can claim under leadership.

    WHOA…..bad faith arguing. Her opening phrase is true, regarding the Lord in her life. Where she headed with it is a bit confused. I asked her where she got hat idea. She said she had scriptural evidence that if the Lord called her to do something, that’s that, I do not matter. her example was if she was called off to ministry on the other side of the world.

    Lest anyone think this was some kind of argument using scripture, about submission, it wasn’t. At this point it had become a sort of academic discussion.

    She insists “its all there”. She sets out to find it. My wife is EXTREMELY well read of scripture. That she could not just refer to it was telling. That she had devised a loop hole for women was predictable. We never finished the conversation simply because it was not important to do so in the context of that talk. But the talk set me thinking about craving leadership.

    Often when the sphere writers who claim women crave leadership say so, its not really about biblical submission anyway. Biblical submission is more passive than falling under active leadership, something with figurative movement in other words. Like Deep strength wrote, essentially they are talking about craving being secured by a big strong handsome man. To call that a virtue that men can drill for, and when they hit it a fount of marital tranquility spews forth is folly…..is GAME.

  26. Elspeth on October 29, 2013 at 9:02 pm said: Edit

    I was a little shocked as she played a rhetorical trick on me, saying “well, my first allegiance is to the Lord, and if he is calling me to something, then that supersedes anything a husband can claim under leadership.

    WHOA…..bad faith arguing. Her opening phrase is true, regarding the Lord in her life. Where she headed with it is a bit confused. I asked her where she got hat idea. She said she had scriptural evidence that if the Lord called her to do something, that’s that, I do not matter. her example was if she was called off to ministry on the other side of the world.

    Oh, my gosh. I have a post in draft ({What does it mean to be a Christian?” is the tentative boring title).

    One of the things among many that inspired it was when woman I really looked up to for her spiritual fortitude and guidance said to me: “If the Lord put something in your heart, you never let anyone come between you and what he told you to do, not even your husband.”

    Of course my husband said “That’s my aunt and I love her but she’s full of crap. If the Lord means for you to do something, he’d make it where I’m on board with it.”

    I didn’t really need him to tell me that, but it’ little things like that I’ve encountered for the past 20+ years (including my own reprehensible behavior) that has set my wheels to turning of late. How we so blatantly and deliberately disobey and think it’s perectly fine. I’m not talking about struggles here but conscious decisions that are direct rebellion against Scripture.

    Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s term “cheap grace” springs to mind.

  27. Yes that what I am saying exactly. And I said exactly what your husband said. In the past my wife has proven things to me with scripture….on things not relational. Obviously I’d tend to be better researched on these things than on other things.
    I can tell that the fact she never came up with anything was profound to her. She made a lame attempt using scripture that says that nothing, not mother father family etc., should come between you and God…..and also to sell everything and follow Him….stuff like that.

  28. I noticed something today a propos of this, a continuation of another thought that occurred to me recently, and like everything else it all goes back to the garden.

    “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
    And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
    But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die…”

    First, a question to the Master Analyzer of Subtleties: why did the serpent ask, “Hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” rather than “Hath God said, ye may eat of every tree of the garden?” BTW reading thru this blog I spent A LOT of time on the green grass post trying to figure out what it was about. I think I must be a victim of frequent such subtleties, because it took me a long time in the post and in the comments and in the reblog to even see what the ruse was.

    Anyway, the woman cites the command as “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it”. God is not recorded as prohibiting the touch. The prohibition of touch must have come from Adam as Steward of the Garden, charged with among other things the making of rules for the better management thereof. Eve conflates the command of Adam with the command of God, not a bad thing necessarily.

    The serpent contradicts not the word of God but the word of Adam. As though to say, “You will not surely die (if you only touch it). You can touch it and still be obeying God.” In saying “You will not surely die (if you only touch it)”, HE IS NOT LYING. He is, however, inviting Eve to disobey, not God, but Adam. Eve sinned by touching; by the time she ate, she was already in the wrong by defying the command of the Master of the Garden. (Even if I am wrong about Adam’s having said it, she THOUGHT it was the command and sinned by touching it.)

    According to my thesis, Eve’s fundamental temptation was to disobey Adam, not God. It is a basic breach of loyalty and a wedge between them to destroy the created order. It is THE basic disruption and the most difficult to repair or even recognize, which may be why it is where the line in the sand is drawn in churchian teaching. This is entirely in keeping with the admonishment – curse “He shall rule over you” and with the apostles’ commands regarding the order in the Christian household.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s