Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

A Feminist Home on the Web

By Gary Moskowitz, Pop and Politics. Posted September 11, 2006.


Feministing, the popular blog site, aims to reignite the women's movement. But are we really witnessing a new wave of feminism? And can a blog -- no matter how fiery -- move meatspace toward gender equality?
samhita
samhita
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

An interview with Feministing editor Samhita Mukhopadhyay (28) is like a fast-paced workshop on how to be a tireless wireless feminist. Mukhopadhyay is one of six female staff members that run the blog Feministing. The site editors and founders are motivated by their belief that young women are rarely given the opportunity to speak on their own behalf on issues that affect their lives and futures. Feministing aims to provide a platform for women to comment on and analyze these issues. Roughly 25,000 unique users per day visit the site, which gets more than 50,000 actual hits a day, according to the site's most recent data. A men's group, in response to Feministing's success, has created a mock-feminism blog site at Feministing.org. Mukhopadhyay says: "That shit just makes us more famous."

The site is no sorority house side project. It doesn't "hate" men. It doesn't have male contributors, although men frequently respond to its blogs. It prefers quick, off-the-cuff blogs and rants to fully reported news articles. Mukhopadhyay is the only woman of color among the site staff. They make money off of page ads which is typically spent on new writers or travel.

The San Francisco Chronicle in an article about feminism and First Lady Laura Bush in May 2006 called for a new, all-inclusive "Big Tent" feminism, and chided Feministing as "righteous" in stating that feminism isn't for everybody. AlterNet praised Feministing for its ability to segue flawlessly from rants on Chilean President Michelle Bachelet to reports on a skin-tightening product called "Virgin Cream."

As a feminist blogger, Mukhopadhyay's focus is on productivity and connectivity. During our interview, she huddles up with her laptop and multi-tasks. While firing off responses to my questions, she's also reading an update about an alleged gang rape at Fresno State, recommending other blog sites to me, discussing the pros and cons of polyamory versus hetero-normativity and debating the relevance of mainstream media.

GM: Is the blogosphere the location for a new feminism?

Samhita Mukhopadhyay: If you are an activist and not reading blogs, you're not doing your job. [The blogosphere] is a listening audience and an active audience. It could be anyone out there; an anti-feminist from Ohio, a housewife in Illinois.

GM: Are most of your readers from the Midwest?

SM: We get a lot of response from the Midwest and Austin, Texas, but the Bay Area and New York City are our two mainstays. We hear from a lot of college students.

GM: What do you think draws people to a blog site like Feministing?

SM: Anonymity -- that's the best part about it, for most viewers who want to participate in in-depth discussions. [Anonymous] people say shit they wouldn't normally say. People chime in with very personal stories. "As a woman of color in this town...," you know, like that -- I'm sorry, I just saw an update on this 11-year-old girl who was [allegedly] raped at Fresno City College. Excuse me for a second. I've got to write about this immediately...

GM: It's almost like it's you and your computer against the world. But aren't there drawbacks to leading a feminist movement through blogs? What about face-to-face dialog?

SM: Well, this is our activism; engaging with other bloggers. But yeah, we talk all the time about whether or not we are organizing the people we talk about or if we're just computer nerds. We want to alliance-build. But is it always safe to sit behind your keyboard? No. I still don't always feel confident or safe.

GM: How so?

SM: People come to the site, read my blog and say things like "Don't get out of hand." This is still the dominant view, and there is still such a gendered power imbalance, and it's easy to get caught up in all that and think, "Well, you're right." People have told me I'll never have a journalism career. Some say my writing is unbalanced and anti-white. But it's not, not in this context. I write what I feel and what I see, through the lens of post-colonial theory.

GM: And how, through that lens, are you working to build alliances?

SM: By continuing to read and write. By going to events. I attended "Action in Media" at [the Massachusetts Institute of Technology] this spring. It made me realize how much influence Feministing has. People there knew who we were. In feminism, it's so important to be among colleagues to challenge each other and be surrounded by each other. Plus, a lot of men read my blog. That's how I get laid (laughs).

GM: I think men come to feminism in a lot of different ways. I have a friend whose idea of feminism is to let woman pay the tab at restaurants and bars.

SM: That "what can women do for me" mentality is patriarchy at work. They try to put the joke on us. Statistically, men still make more money than women. But that's not what it's all about. It's about access and power.

GM: Can you elaborate? What are some issues you are focused on right now?

SM: In politics, there is an assault on women and reproductive issues. Look at South Dakota right now and this whole "Plan B-conscience clause-pharmacy ban" thing. I get hundreds of comments daily. I've got 140 comments on drinking and self-esteem alone. I can't read through all that. But also issues like immigration, and how it's a feminist issue. It's not just about the lives of women. It's about how gender and sexism affects our lives. There's Roe vs. Wade, child molestation, rape laws, affirmative action, health care, prostitution, and retirement, like how women have no access to pensions in the UK. I'll even talk about Britney [Spears] once in a while, if it's relevant.

GM: You talk about building alliances, challenging notions of access and power and how gender and sexism play out in society. You don't need to be a feminist to actively struggle against these things. Plus, plenty of folks are quick to dismiss women who stand on a strong feminist platform. Do you consider yourself to be an unmitigated feminist?

SM: Yes. I am a feminist, because I believe that this society is inequitable because of gender, race, class and sexuality. I recognize it and actively seek to change it.

GM: Do you expect people to be on the same page with you?

SM: Feminism can be recognized in many ways. For me, it's more about what our moments of resistance are as women: a mother kicking out her deadbeat husband for not taking care of their child; women with multiple sex partners; women earning power in board rooms. Taking back. Acting back. It's complicated.

GM: Is it possible to have a united feminist movement?

SM: Those chicks who flashed their tits in the 60s largely cater to the white middle class. They often don't do enough to include women of color. I think what you see now is little clusters [of feminists] getting together on issues, like the Duke rape case. It's fragmented, but once something happens, people rally.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Gary Moskowitz is working on his Master's in Education at San Francisco State University. He thanks the Bush Administration for giving him something to complain about every day.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
so-called
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 11, 2006 2:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a shame that after all these years of so-called democracy women and especially women of color are still being treated poorly by men all over the world. Some of this bunk is caused by excessive male ego and some is caused by dumb anti-women religious dogmas. Down with bunk!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: so-called Posted by: Phenix
Gender fairness
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Sep 11, 2006 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think you have to speak more in terms of gender justice than feminism, i.e. what's fair and just for both sexes, rather than what can be done for women or men. Otherwise, I think you will be constantly on the defensive. And it will be a non-stop, mindless, back-and-forth battle of the sexes.

A lot of this stuff seems to be more about special interests than justice, unless you can admit there are some things in the system that are skewed against men, and be willing to take them as seriously. One example is domestic violence against men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gender fairness Posted by: cynsue
» RE: Gender fairness Posted by: fork
Blog to your blog
Posted by: marxalot on Sep 11, 2006 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It doesn't have male contributors, although men frequently respond to its blogs. It prefers quick, off-the-cuff blogs and rants to fully reported news articles."

Entries in blogs are called posts. A blog isn't a post it is a repository for posts. If you are going to write about blogging, please learn the nomenclature.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gender Equality
Posted by: Linda50 on Sep 11, 2006 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a good article and to see that feminism isn't dead is great. Issues of gender and equality is nothing new. When the womens' movement, the second wave started, it was rallied around domestic violence, hence, it was considered a woman's issue. Men felt threatened and thought that women were trying to castrate them. Because of the ideology of that day, men haven't felt that they can bring forward any domestic violence issues because they would be considered cowards. That is why domestic violence is the way it is now. All shelters are geared for heterosexual women. Not lesbians, not gay men and not heterosexual men. Men have themselves to compete with and heaven forbid if one loses the race for whatever. It's to bad to see that issues that drove the second movement are still not being looked seriously now. Wage and reproductive rights. It really shows that Patriarchy doesn't want to let go of its power. Now, with the present administration, it shows less inclusivity to all who is not white, upper-middle class men.
What is scary that a lot of young women still thinks that the issues that drove the second wave are no longer relevant. In a Women's convention, they saw us older feminsits as beating a dead horse. AGAIN, we have to reinvent the wheel because complacency and amnesia is at work again. Spinning wheels don't make progress. I guess vigilant oversight on issues is what is needed to monitor any progress or lapse there of. I'm glad to see that there is website to keep people on their toes. It is inclusive and to see that it's not men bashing or women on pedestal but equality, what a radical concept!? That is what the movement is suppose to be about. Just trying to destroy the old paradigms of power and have equal access. The only threat that comes from that is from the heirarchy that is in power now. The old guard and hypocrites that have been raping this country and everyone in it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuances of equalities
Posted by: YogiBear on Sep 11, 2006 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think men come to feminism in a lot of different ways. I have a friend whose idea of feminism is to let woman pay the tab at restaurants and bars.

Does the friend "let" women pay the tab? Or does he expect it? If he allows it, he's being sexist. If he expects it, and you have a problem with it, even subtly, then you're demeaning women. I mean, since he is a friend, even if he jokes about not paying the tab in a way that makes him seem like he's dissing feminisim, isn't the fact that he still engages in such behavior still a step toward equality in some small way? He certainly beats the guys who expect to pay, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nuances of equalities Posted by: YogiBear
» I would argue... Posted by: Allison
» RE: I would argue... Posted by: YogiBear
the line at the bottom of the page
Posted by: LDavistrueblue on Sep 11, 2006 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
reads, "By and for young feminists..." As a dedicated antifeminist, I figured I should bring myself up to date, in case anything had changed since 1968. It hasn't. Reading down the page I found an endless stream of complaints, one after the other. By the end, I felt like I had just come home from a twelve-hour shift. This whiny crap doesn't empower "young feminists," it just keeps them believing that if they complain about men long and hard enough, the world will become a better place. Try the approach taken with sons in our family: YOU are responsible for your own behavior and your own safety. If you get in a car with drunk friends, make sure you live long enough for me to whip your pathetic ass. Love, Dad

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh jeez Posted by: Allison
» The anti-feminist Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: The anti-feminist Posted by: Kuber
» RE: The anti-feminist Posted by: Kuber
UK women
Posted by: owleyes on Sep 11, 2006 2:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What does she mean when she says that women in the UK have no access to pensions? I don't think it can possibly mean that women can't have the same types of retirement accounts as men, but what do I know? Would anyone care to educate me?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women in the UK
Posted by: deedle on Sep 11, 2006 6:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women in the UK have access to state pensions.

Feministing.com, from a feminist point of view, isn't feminist at all. It simply pays lip service to some feminist ideology with a patriarchy-pleasing bent.

I'd be really sad if young feminists thought that was the way to go.

Having said that, Feministing.com remained in my favourites for quite a long time because they "kind of said it" but not quite. I think that if you really want to find the voice of feminism you have to look way past the first thing that comes up on Google - after all, Google shows up the 'popular', not necessarily the meaningful.

Feministing.com is all about "let's make it ok for the patriarchy" really. Is that feminism?
Nah. I don't think so. I think it's more of the same old, same old.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hate Movement
Posted by: happy_bullet on Sep 12, 2006 12:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the current climate of:

Women millionaires outnumbering male millionaires, thus eliminating the core motivation for feminism;

The impending exposure of feminist domestic violence lies, for example Australian Bureau of Statistics Report that women commit around 1/3 of domestic violence;

And men increasingly not wanting anything to do with increasingly immoral women, especially not marry them given the state of current anti-male divorce and domestic violence legislation..

I'd say women that run sites like feministing.com are about to be exposed for the hateful, entitlements grabbing lobbyists they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Query Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Hate Movement Posted by: Linda50
» RE: Hate Movement Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Hate Movement Posted by: caitlin
» RE: Hate Movement Posted by: Phenix
» Just like in the '50s Posted by: AdamSelene40
Wake me when the Gender Wars are over...
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Sep 12, 2006 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>> "...there is still such a gendered power imbalance..."

In favor of women, right?

The New Aristocrats, by Rich Zubaty

What do we think of when we think of aristocrats? Wealthy estate owners robed in fine clothes? Social lions, blessed by birth, with immunity from performing heavy labor, and freedom from the tedious business of fighting wars? Pampered scions with privileged access to the ear of the King? Emotionally reserved cultural nobles comporting themselves with an air of moral superiority? The trend-setters of pomp and spectacle? The social Petri dish of rumor and gossip?

Forbes magazine says women own 65% of America's wealth and spend 80% of consumer dollars. Warren Farrell says six times more retail space is allotted to women's personal items than to men's.

Less than 1% of bricklayers, asphalt pourers, and heavy laborers are women. Women do not fix their own cars or repair their own toilets.

Women are not required to register for the Selective Service. Women may aspire to becoming senators or judges or corporate tycoons, but they are not obligated to fight the wars that preserve our government and economic system.

Women have organized powerful lobbying entities which put pressure on Washington to address women's issues and ignore men's issues. Women are the inheritors of government policies which afford them special privilege in the arenas of divorce, custody, reproductive rights; crime and sentencing; health care and longevity; and military service.

Aristocrats dominate culture through sheer pomposity, exude airs of moral and cultural superiority, and disdain those "beneath" them. Women spend more money on "culture" than men. They consume more books, films, live performances and domestic items. In doing so they warp popular culture to appeal to their biases.

Women's presumptions and prejudices rule popular media, education, and advertising. Things of interest to women are widely regarded as being culturally superior to things of interest to men. Designer fashion shows get news coverage. Salmon fishing and hot rods do not. Women do not hesitate to belittle and shame men for their "cruder" tastes.

Aristocrats and feminist enforcers aggressively censor people or ideas with which they disagree. They will bully, sabotage, and openly molest adversaries. They do not die in foreign wars protecting freedom of speech, and have thereby perversely concluded that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for them, and not for anyone else.

As knights are considered morally superior to common soldiers, so women are considered morally superior to men. Women are believed when they lie, forgiven when they cheat, and sentenced to 50% less jail time when convicted of the same crimes as men. When a man hits a woman we despise him as a brute. When a woman hits a man we ask what HE did to provoke her. Why the duplicity? Like all aristocrats, women are assumed to adhere to a higher moral standard than common men.
....
If America created a special class of men who could hold high office without fighting war, control vast wealth by means of special government connections, and evade hard labor by claiming cultural and moral superiority, we would consider them parasites, a throwback to monarchy -- bloody aristocrats!

And we wouldn't kiss the seats of their bluejeans. We'd mount a media campaign to take them down a notch. Or we'd put them on a boat back to Europe to exert their rivalries in a society resigned to social class divisions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Aristocrats?
Posted by: morticia on Sep 12, 2006 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"If America created a special class of men who could hold high office without fighting war, control vast wealth by means of special government connections, and evade hard labor by claiming cultural and moral superiority, we would consider them parasites, a throwback to monarchy -- bloody aristocrats!

And we wouldn't kiss the seats of their bluejeans. We'd mount a media campaign to take them down a notch. Or we'd put them on a boat back to Europe to exert their rivalries in a society resigned to social class divisions."


Hmmmm. But we have created such a class of men. That first paragraph sounds a lot like Bush-Cheney & Co., n'est-ce pas? But alas, we've not mounted a media campaign to take them down, nor put them on a boat to anywhere, and we kiss the seats of their worsted twill trousers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Aristocrats? Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Aristocrats? Posted by: hymalaia
» RE: Aristocrats? Posted by: morticia
Another article about feminism
Posted by: caitlin on Sep 13, 2006 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And of course, all of the whiny men come out in droves to talk about those Big Bad Feminists and how they are ruining the country by driving them away from the Democrats and running roughshod over the universe.

In the words of the hilarious Artie Lange, may I just say:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

This comments section reads like it's been overrun with Vox Day's followers, all of whom are apparently amazing, intelligent, stellar individuals whose happiness in life has been stifled by those damn uppity bitches who refuse to bend over and take it up the ass while faking that they actually like it.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

You vote Republican because you don't like the fact that most feminists vote Democrat? Wow, way to show the courage of your convictions there, buddy!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Feminists are the new aristrocrats? Yes, because when a woman states out loud that she actually considers herself to be a *gasp!* human being, she is TOTALLY acting like a monarch, ordering people around with a wave of her wand and yelling "Off with their heads!"

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Let's see - what else are feminists responsible for?

- Domestic violence, both against men and women
- Gang rapes
- Gang banging
- Increase of drug use among teens
- Increase of teenage pregnancy
- Diminishing wages
- Globalization
- Nuclear Holocaust
- The fact that we are all going to die

Gosh, you can blame EVERYTHING on feminists! This is fun! What else can we blame on feminists? Come on - you seem to be the experts on this matter. What else is our fault?

(If you are going to respond that, wow, I seem awfully angry, then save yourself the keystrokes and shut the fuck up. Considering that I've just read several hundred sentences all about the fact that my refusal to be a doormat breeding sow for my husband is leading to the fall of Western Civilization as we know it, damn straight I'm angry, and I don't think there is a single fucking thing wrong with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Take a chill pill Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Take a chill pill Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Take a chill pill Posted by: hymalaia
Deserves to die...
Posted by: Phenix on Sep 13, 2006 5:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One day the feminist movement will reawaken in America but at our current point in Ameican history feminism deserves a quick or rather a brutal death and later a marked grave that reads something along the lines of "You tried but failed and later lost your way. With you went America"

Hell that motto can go with any movement in the 1960s.

Feminism like most other social movements in US history, originated from the desires of disgruntled white middle class Americans. In this case suburbanite housewives and daughters who were bored to tears by the well boring surroundings of suburbia.

In their fight for justice they raised many valid and fair points but once feminism gained some notable victories it moved to face not American but foreign problems. You now hear people talk about the plight of a peasant women in Bolivia while over looking the plight of a poor black women in North Philly. You hear them talk about the sex trade of Eastern Europe while overlooking the collaspe of our school systems. They in short felt it was easier to deal with societal problems in a foreign culture then deal with the entrenched problems of American culture.

The Cold War and later corporate hegemony has played a large role in taming the feminist movements but the choice of issues has also limited its voice. How do you continue a movement if your only "real" issues are repoductive choice and female to male wage ratios? Its sounds to me that you won the first battles in a war but its clear that it was only a small set back for conservative forces in the United States.

I have sat in many college courses with modern feminists and not one can see the interconnections of their lives and the poverty through out the world. Its easier for them to attack Islamic culture while overlooking our fellow right wing christians. I never took a Womens Studies course buy my college was 65% women and I was in history, international affairs, and economic classes.


Other thoughts

It is very hard if not impossible to discuss the inequalites in education since females are not a greater proportion of college graduates. Just want to bring that up in case anyone else wants to attack me on that issue.

Also is it just me or do many people who call themselves feminists think its safe becuase in the US we can watch Sex in the City and Will and Grace.

O and blogging is a seriously lazy ass way to be an activist. I don't think the major players in todays government are really worried that an X amount of people are on the internet because they know that these people are not going to walk the street and challenge their power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Deserves to die... Posted by: hymalaia
Go Pound Sand, Boys
Posted by: txfeminist on Sep 15, 2006 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that this thread is essentially a list of anti-feminist rhetorical talking points spewed by mindless patriarchal robots demonstrates clearly to me that feminist blogs are challenging people's mindset, and are having an effect. The boys are having a tantrum. Keep having one, guys... We're busy changing the world.

If you don't like it, too bad. Go pound sand. We're here to stay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Go Pound Sand, Boys Posted by: Kuber
» RE: Go Pound Sand, Boys Posted by: morticia
There can never be 'equality' across fundamental differences!
Posted by: Kuber on Sep 15, 2006 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In simple terms, feminism is the belief in social, political and economic equality of the sexes."

-- Wikipedia

Wikipedia is obviously wickedly whacked!

That which is inherently different (as gender and the behavior/social roles devolving from them are different) can never ever be 'equal'.
It's just an illusion to believe otherwise


You know; it's ok when the female mind thinks along the line of trying to make 'equal' apples and oranges; because the female is merely expressing unhappiness, the source of which often does not really know. I feel her pain.

However, when a male would pick up the female's rag and start drying his eyes with it because he is intent on emulating the moaning and groaning of the female, that is downright disgusting and pussified of him.

Males need to make females happy (a not too difficult task) not whine along with them or give into their periodic whining. Otherwise there will be no end to it.
Giving in to the whining of females is like feeding alligators -- a big no no!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Behold the masterful Kuber....
Posted by: morticia on Sep 16, 2006 8:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....whose pecker hangs down like a tuber.
Entitlement lies
With that thing 'twixt his thighs.
So he thinks. But he's not Martin Buber.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement