Undoing most of the damage wrought by feminism in one simple step

For the past two years, I have been unpacking the racist, classist, misogynist bullshit that is feminism, and exploring the ways that sexism harms men and boys – and always in the back of my mind is the whisper what do we do about this?

Watching President’s Obama’s SOTU address was an incredibly frustrating experience as he ignored all the key issues and proposed massive spending campaigns that effectively pour more fuel on the fire when we are trying to put the damn fire out! The one that struck me in particular was his suggestion that community college tuition be reduced to zero, and I was left shaking my head that the goddamn President of the most successful capitalist, free market economy in history does not appear to understand how markets function.

Here’s his idea: the markets have set community college tuition at $3800/yr. That is what students are able to pay. Go over that amount, and you eliminate most of your applicants. Some colleges can afford to do that, most cannot. They must price their product at the market rate. This is how markets work. President Obama wants to grant all qualified applicants $3800/yr, effectively reducing tuition to zero.

With all due respect, Mr. President, are you fucking retarded?

Students still have the $3800 they intended to spend on tuition. Do you seriously think colleges are just going to let that $3800 waltz into the nearest Apple Store? No, they are not. Colleges will respond rationally and double their tuition fees. Now they get $3800 from the students (who have already indicated via the market they are willing to pay that) and the $3800 from the government.

Brilliant use of money. Idiots.

All of this led to me to thinking that we already spend a shitload of money on education, but it’s the wrong education that prepares even those students who manage to drag their bored asses through it nothing of value they can trade in the free market. A high school diploma is about as useful as toilet paper, unless you use it to go on to higher education. But why is higher education even necessary? Instead of boring the fuck out of the majority of students for 4 years studying utterly useless crap like Urban Geography and Poetry and Sociology, why are we not offering emerging adults some real choices and real skills that will graduate them into paid employment?

Why do we not have trade schools beginning in Grade 10?

The US has a looming skilled trades shortage. Plenty of other countries around the world treat 15 year olds as emerging adults perfectly capable of making rational, practical decisions about their futures. We know beyond all shadow of a doubt that schools are designed to meet the needs of abstract, esoterically inclined “book-learners”, and do almost nothing to address the needs of restless, hands-on, objective, kinetic learners who want to do something and not sit on their asses discussing the theory behind the action.

Who are these students?

 

Predominantly young men.

And then it clicked. Quite some time ago, I read a book called Click: When We Knew We Were Feminists, which is essentially a bunch of whiny white women describing the moment they understood the power inherent in perpetual victimhood. Thinking through the issue of trade schools, I am kind of left in awe of how simple and how devastatingly effective the feminist program to destroy masculinity and manhood has been.

Click.

Destroy the trades.

The university bound, Ivy League men won’t be affected, but the vast majority of working class and lower income men will be reduced to social flotsam. Brilliant, except for that whole we need electricians and plumbers and surveyors problem but feminists are not really known for logic or consequences, are they?

Prior to 1984, it was possible for a student to graduate from high school fully prepared to enter into an apprentice trade, which meant graduating into paid employment. The Aviation Highschool in New York, for example, supplies 12% of the entire world’s aircraft workers! One high school! That high school is still up and running and educates over 2000 students per year, but if you are not in Queens, you are shit out of luck.

Enter the “social progressives” in the 1960’s, especially John Dewey, and the dismantling of an educational system that served primarily low income and working class men was underway, for their own good, dontcha know? Step by step, the progressives began taking apart the very mechanism that promoted a meritocratic, democratic and economically stable society. The feminists got wind of this and leapt on board with excitement and visions of female domination. If schools, especially high schools, could be transformed into institutions that benefited women primarily, women would take over the labor market and force the non-socially valuable (ie: not wealthy) men into a subservient role in society. If young men could be deprived of the means of matching their interests and talents to real skills, they would increasingly drop out, turn to underground economic activities to survive and be subsequently incarcerated en masse.

One group of men in particular.

The scary ones.

The black ones.

By destroying  young men’s opportunity to join the legitimate labor market, feminists and social progressives simultaneously destroyed the nuclear family (the majority of men could no longer provide for their families), created the welfare state and gave themselves paper shuffling, bullshit jobs to administer the whole deal.

You have to admit, it was rather clever. Did feminists and social progressives fully realize the consequences of these actions? I’m guessing at the very highest levels of decision-making, you’re damn right they did. They pedalled this malevolence to the masses by framing it as “social justice” – It’s not fair that lower income men should graduate as electricians and plumbers while upper income men go on to be doctors and lawyers! Everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer! The less intellectually adept feminists and social justice warriors bought it hook line and sinker and the vocational educational system was pretty much destroyed by the end of the 1980s.

Mission accomplished. Guess what? All those low and working class young men didn’t put their nose to the arty-farty grindstone and become doctors and lawyers, except for the ones who would have done so anyways. They sat through a few years of “education” that made zero efforts to capture their talents, skills or interests and in fact blamed them for the failures of the system. Those brown and black lower income students in particular were characterized as unmotivated, dull, lazy, immature and possibly even inherently prone to violence and brute stupidity.

Vocational high schools are seeing a resurgence in some states that have cast off the bullshit “social justice” narrative. “In Massachusetts,  in 2013, the graduation rate at regional vocational high schools was 95 percent. At traditional high schools, the graduation rate was 86 percent,” writes Emily Hanford of American Radio Works.

Imagine vocational high schools rolled out nationwide. Take all those community college courses Obama wants to make “free” and run them in high schools which are already free (in the sense that all taxpayers finance them, not individual consumers). The idea that emerging adults are too stupid to make rational life choices is garbage. The opposition to vocational high schools comes from feminists who decry the fact that mostly young men choose to take advantage of them.

No one and nothing is keeping young women out. They are simply not interested.

Who is going to teach these trades courses? Social progressives and feminists maneuvered the school system so that essentially only middle class (mostly women) could get teaching jobs. The requirements to be a teacher slowly advanced from a post high school training course to a 5 year university degree, which has the dual effect of making sure that low and working class students are never taught by someone who has lived their lives and shared their experiences, and created a sweet job with summers off (gotta bring in that wheat crop and harvest those potatoes, amirite?) for middle class men and women. 2% of teachers in America are black men.

 2%

Switch to vocational schools and suddenly most of those jobs will go to working class men with experience in their fields. Can women teach vocational school courses? Of course they can. Are you an HVAC? Great. You’re hired.

Imagine the impact of restoring skills-based learning in lower and working class communities, especially black communities. You’re 15 years old, high school is boring as shit, and even if you finish you’ll be lucky to work at McDonald’s with no hope of advancement. You can make $300/week spotting for drug gangs. Hobson’s Choice.

 

 

Bring in the vocational skills school. Now you’re 15 years old and you don’t sit in chair on your ass all day reading books. You are in a workshop, a welding lab, an air-conditioning unit and you are learning skills that will pay you an above average wage when you graduate. You will be able to support a family, should you choose to do so. You can take advanced training at any stage of your career and add corollary skills as you see fit. You get a well-paid summer job. You are working. Doing something meaningful. Your skills are highly sought after. You are admired, valued and companies will compete for your talents. What does that drug gang have to offer you? The complete destruction of all of that.

No thanks.

Nothing stops a bullet like a job, as the saying goes.

Obama almost has it almost right. Close but no cigar. A return to vocational high schools will be strongly, desperately resisted by feminists, mark my words. Because at the very heart of that restoration is a very simple idea: men have worth. Vocational high schools treat all men (and the few women who are interested) as intelligent, ambitious, talented, driven, capable and valuable human beings not to be squandered to mistaken ideas about social justice.  This isn’t about economic worth. That is merely a side effect. It begins with the idea that men have worth as human beings. Instilling that sense of worth by providing men with a real opportunity to discover their own worth and translate that into economic market value as they see fit is the result of treating men, especially low income and working class men as inherently valuable human beings.

The reverberations in the black community will be profound indeed. Find me a progressive or a feminist who claims that low income black men are intelligent, ambitious, talented, driven, capable and valuable human beings.

Want to find out just how true that is?

Bring back vocational high schools.

 

Now.

Lots of love,

JB

A Christmas Letter for Fathers Alienated from their Children

Kate Winslet has been in the news lately, threatening to sue Fathers4Justice over an ad campaign criticizing comments she made in the media indicating she does not believe in shared parenting.

None of this 50/50 time with the mums and dads – my children live with me; that is it.

The comments appeared in Vogue magazine, and Ms. Winslet does not deny that she uttered them.

Winslet, who has three children by three different fathers, may or may not be handling her family dynamics well, ensuring that her children continue to enjoy the undeniable benefits of a continued relationship with their fathers. That is a moot point. Winslet’s personal circumstances are irrelevant. What IS relevant is her assertion that shared parenting, this “50/50 time with mums and dads” – is negative and detrimental to children’s well-being.

“Oh, my God! Those poor children! They must have gone through so much”.

Says who? They’ve always been with me. They don’t go from pillar to post; they’re not flown here and there with nannies.

Winslet’s first husband, Jim Threapleton, agrees with Fathers4Justice, and said he went months without seeing their daughter, Mia, but even so, the point is not how Winslet is managing her own circumstances – the point is that as a public figure, she is explicitly encouraging custodial parents to reject shared parenting.

And for that, she deserves to be called out.

Winslet makes her living as a public figure. Her words were not taken from a private conversation she had with friends. She made her statement in Vogue magazine, which she clearly understands will be read by millions of magazine subscribers and buyers. Total average circulation for Vogue magazine is 1.2 million, which only includes direct purchases. The number of shared reads (you read my copy) increases the circulation number even further. Indeed, that is the point of appearing in Vogue: it keeps her in the public eye and bolsters her value as a performer and public figure, allowing her to charge high prices for her services.

No one cast Winslet as a vindictive, alienating shrew. She did it to herself, so crying foul now is a bit rich.

The simple fact is that divorce, and separation from children is a critical public health issue. Divorced men are 39% more likely to commit suicide when they are separated from their children. The complete article is behind a paywall, but here is the citation:

Daniel S. Felix, W. David Robinson, and Kimberly J. Jarzynka. The Influence of Divorce on Men’s Health Journal of Men’s Health. September 2013, 10(1): 3-7. doi:10.1016/j.jomh.2012.09.002.

It is unconscionable that Winslet would promote separation as being good for her children, or good for her ex-husbands. She deserves every ounce of opprobrium she has generated.

I am the adult survivor of parental alienation following divorce, and I would like to spend the rest of this article addressing fathers who find themselves in this terrible situation. You can read the story of how the alienation played out here.

Christmas was always the worst time of year. My father was rarely a full participant in the celebrations, but he would drop off gifts, or have them mailed to us, and then be on his way. We had no idea at the time that he was in violation of court orders when he showed up, and that my mother would only permit him to stay for a few minutes. He considered himself lucky to have even that.

We hated him for thinking that being a father meant spending some money and then taking off at the earliest opportunity. Whatever presents or gifts he brought, it was never enough. We showed no gratitude. The words “thank you” were never uttered. We glared at him sullenly and perhaps begrudgingly conceded that some presents were “okay”.

We were utterly miserable and angry and ungrateful and terrible to him.

We had no idea that everything my mother had told us was a lie. I feel so wretched now, as an adult, looking back at how my brothers and I behaved towards my father, who, bless his courage and strength, never lashed out at us, and never gave up. I have no idea where he found the heart, but he did.

My father was no angel. He embraced a particularly violent form of Christianity that encouraged, interesting, shall we say, disciplinary techniques. He believed in the value of physical labor, and took that to extremes, sometimes. He believed in the character building value of hardship. He was not always the best father.

From those flaws, my mother built a careful psychological cage around her children and taught us to hate him. Not just dislike, but to actively despise and hate him. And she succeeded. He faced that hatred and never wavered. It is often said that women grow up to marry men who remind them of their fathers, and I have often said in the past that I am so glad I married a man nothing like my father.

The poison runs deep, and bleeding it out takes a long time.

The truth is that I married a man who has all the strength and character and goodness of my father. His cheerfulness is exactly like my father’s unwillingness to ever abandon hope. They are both relentlessly optimistic that things will work out, eventually. I was blind to that for a very long time.

I cannot imagine the pain I have caused my father, and I take some responsibility for that. As I child, I was more or less helpless against the lies my mother told. I could not understand how I was being manipulated, and I therefore could not resist. As an adult, I have fewer excuses. My father was the one who reached out to me. I cannot say if the day would ever have come that I would have looked for him. The truth about my childhood came as a complete shock, and yet, once I knew, it was all so obvious.

This is the hardest part. All across the world, there are countless fathers, facing down a Christmas season with children who hate them. Who resent them. Who are ungrateful, unappreciative, sullen, unpleasant and just generally unlikeable.

Their minds have been poisoned. They have been subjected to a kind of psychological torture called “parental alienation”. It is an extreme form of child abuse and the goal is to deprive both the children and the alienated parent of love.

And it works.

Oh, how it works.

But not forever. Resisting parental alienation as it is happening is incredibly difficult. I wish I could offer some happy solution. Here are a few success stories to consider. And a few more.

It is bitterly unfair that both the alienated parent and the alienated children are condemned to missing one another’s lives while the children are young and being subjected to extreme brainwashing. And the devastating truth is that the effects can last long after childhood.

In most cases of parental alienation, it is fathers and children who are victims of vindictive mothers – women who are fully prepared to destroy their children psychologically for their own twisted desires.

I am by no means suggesting that alienated parents give up the fight to have their children rescued from the psychological abuse that is parental alienation. Absolutely not. This is an issue that must be understood as deeply harmful abuse with long lasting effects.

I’ve lived through both physical and psychological abuse – the psychological was far more difficult to overcome.

And that is the heart of my message. My father was not perfect. And neither was I. I held on to my irrational anger for a long time. Much longer than I should have. I know that. My unwillingness to confront the truth means I lost my father for ten years. Ten years I should have had, but didn’t, because I was not willing to see the truth.

And believe me, this is no attempt to garner sympathy – “oh, no, JB, you were just a child, it isn’t your fault”. That’s bullshit. It violates the central maxim of my life: you don’t get to choose your childhood, but you do get to choose how you respond to it.

I chose badly.

My children have an adoring grandfather, my husband has a father-in-law he loves, my neighbors have a man who can fix almost anything mechanical, my friends have a conduit into my past and the stories that made me who I am, my community has a watcher who keeps an eye on the pets and children – and I have my father back.

Not because of anything I did.

Because my father never gave up hope.

What is Christmas? It is tenderness for the past, courage for the present, hope for the future. It is a fervent wish that every cup may overflow with blessings rich and eternal, and that every path may lead to peace.

Agnes Pharo

To every Daddy without his babies this Christmas season: Our hearts are with you.

May that give you the strength to never lose hope.

Merry Christmas.

All the love,

JB

So what ARE the best jobs for women, then?

It’s kind of funny to see how confused the crew over at Jezebel is in response to this very strange article by Erin Gloria Ryan.  Erin argues that women should NOT go to business school because it will delay their reproductive plans, will offer no real economic value and besides, business schools are filled with douchey frat boys who are all majoring in how to be a dick.

Spending time when you could be having babies… um, not having babies puts you years behind your peers who stayed in the workforce.

A Vanderbilt study found that mothers who graduate from élite institutions are more likely to opt out than graduates of less selective ones, particularly when those women have M.B.A.s. Another Harvard study found that among Harvard college graduates with professional degrees, women with M.B.A.s have the lowest labor force participation rates.

If anything, when a young woman considering a Harvard M.B.A. looks at the choices of her predecessors, she should be even more skeptical of the value of the degree.

http://jezebel.com/how-to-talk-your-girl-friends-out-of-going-to-business-1335667292

I think is my favorite comment:

PietachokUvanillabean48101L

I second the opinion that this [article] is disgusting. If it was intended to be satire, the effect has been lost in the offensive down-talking…and the lack of humor. You can say a lot of this same stuff about any graduate education, but where would we be if every woman listened to this instead of her goals & interests.

Indeed, VanillaBean.  Where would we be?

Why, we might be in the sort of society that recognizes that women’s ambitions and skills tend to differ from men’s, and that we are doing a piss-poor job as a culture in talking to women honestly about what their true “goals and interests” are likely to be.

What Erin hit on, almost certainly inadvertently although maybe not, is that women with advanced business degrees find that those degrees give them an opportunity to dodge a bullet they didn’t know was coming:  they can choose to be full-time mothers, and most of them do exactly that.

Why does an advanced business degree give women that choice?

Because the degree puts them in contact with high-income men, or men with the potential to earn a high income.  Grad school is an excellent place to earn an MRS, and the kinds of jobs women with newly minted MBAs get lands them in a large pool of high-income men aka “investment banks”.

Win-win, right?

Not really, because the fact that women with business degrees find themselves actually having a choice when it comes to deciding how to raise their families comes down to LUCK.  The vast majority of women in business school probably think they’re going to kick-start some kind of awesome “career”, but when the first little bundle arrives, they realize cubicles SUCK and home is where they really want to be.

http://workplaceflexibility.org/images/uploads/program_papers/goldin_-_the_career_cost_of_family.pdf

We are doing such an enormous disservice to men and women alike when we teach women their “goals and interests” should be the primary motivating factor in deciding what to study at college, and then following that up with some giant lies about what those goals and interests will be.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/06/where-feminism-went-wrong-oh-i-dont-know-maybe-with-that-whole-men-suck-and-lets-tell-young-women-a-giant-pack-of-lies-strategy-just-a-thought/

So let’s talk specifics.  Let’s begin with the assumption that almost all women will want to be out of the workforce when they have young children at home.

What kinds of jobs make sense for women who plan on taking a huge chunk of time off?  Obviously, the jobs dominated by men are off the table, because we NEED those jobs to be done or society as we know it simply collapses.

When women enter male dominated professions, two things tend to happen:  the wages that normally accompany those professions begin to decline, and we end up needing MORE workers in that occupational category.

Why? Because women don’t work as many hours as men.

Medicine is great example of that.  Women now make up half the nation’s medical students, but once the ladies do the math, their ambitions take a sharp turn.  Four years of pre-med is usually complete around 22 years of age.  Another four years of med school takes them to 26 years of age.  Add two years of residency on top of that just to qualify as a GP and the lady doctors are suddenly seeing the wall looming directly in front of them.  Another four to eight years to qualify as a specialist, and most of them can kiss husbands, kids and families goodbye.

Instead, they quit at the GP level, and then argue for fewer hours, so they can spend more time with their children.  It takes two women GPs to cover the patient base of one man.  Obviously, wages decline for each individual doctor.

It’s been proven repeatedly—female doctors “will not work the same hours or have the same lifespan of contributions to the medical system as males”

http://www.macleans.ca/science/health/article.jsp?content=20080102_122329_6200

Women physicians make less than male physicians because women traditionally choose lower-paying jobs in primary care fields or they choose to work fewer hours.

Even when women ARE specialists, they still make less money than men.  Because sexism?  Nope.  Because they accept lower wages in exchange for time.

…female doctors were taking less pay in exchange for regular schedules or other family-friendly benefits

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/03/us-doctors-pay-gap-idUSTRE71215F20110203

It’s not really a problem until you consider the enormous expense of training doctors, and then combine that with needing to train twice as many women doctors to replace retiring male physicians.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10101276/Female-doctors-who-work-part-time-after-having-children-put-NHS-under-strain.html

As long as women understand that they WILL and SHOULD make less money than their male counterparts, owing to the fact that their hearts will always be more firmly in the kitchen than the operating room, I have no problem with women as doctors.

In fact, I think it’s a pretty sensible choice, because it gives women an unassailable credential that they can use to transition back to the workforce when and how they like.

Credentials.  That is what women should be striving for.  Something, that once you have, you have for good.  Credentials are what give women choices.

The single most sensible credential I think any woman can pursue is an accounting designation.  An accounting designation (CA, CMA, CGA, CPA) gives women enormous career flexibility, and requires only a minimum amount of maintenance to remain in effect. Accountants work in every industry, from 80-hour-a week-big-name accounting firms to hang-out-a-shingle and do the books for the local cornerstore.

You work when you want to work, and you can ramp up when you have finished the business of raising a family.

Accounting and medicine are not the only occupations with credentials.  There are lots of them.  Go to beauty school and become a hairdresser, by all means.  You can cut hair and do foil highlights in your kitchen while the kids are little and work for the big salon when they hit grade school.  Some credentials you don’t even need to go to school to earn.  C++ or Java programming languages can be learned on-line.  For FREE.

http://abstrusegoose.com/249

Do some recreational programming or work for a charity part time while the kids are little to keep your skills up to date and then consider full-time employment later on.

The point is that women should PLAN to be out of the workforce while their children are little.  If that doesn’t happen, well, fine.  But at least you have a choice.

Of course, Operation Raise Your Own Children requires one tiny little upgrade:  women will need to financially rely on a man.  Preferably a husband.  Who is preferably actually the father of the children she is at home raising.

And here is where we run into a massive, massive problem.

Women have been taught to hate and fear men and to never rely on them for anything.  Which would be funny if it weren’t so blindingly, enragingly stupid.  Our whole fucking society relies on men.  Water, power, communications, protection, transportation – they are all designed, implemented, operated, maintained and repaired by men, and since the lights continue to go on and shelves in the grocery store continue to be stocked, it looks like men can indeed be relied upon.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/17/what-would-happen-if-no-men-showed-up-for-work-today/

Last night, after following the commentary on yesterday’s article, my husband and I were discussing MGOTW.  Men who are simply opting out of marriage and family altogether, which as Goober points out has benefits for individual men, but is completely ruinous for society.

My husband came up with a good analogy, I think.

Let’s say you’re a black man or woman, and your whole life, all you have dreamed about is becoming a doctor.  You dream of saving other people’s lives.  It’s not just a “want”, it’s a calling.  A force within you that cannot be ignored.

But there’s a hitch.

At any time, any one of your white patients can legally enslave you.  Just apply for personal ownership, and boom, you’re a slave now.

Would you still be a doctor?

I figure that’s what MGTOW boils down to, and the men are saying “hell no, not a fucking chance”.

It’s easy to say “the laws have to change”, and I’ve trotted out that little truism myself.  But what laws?  And how should they change?  We can make divorce harder, but will that stop women from divorcing?  We can make custody agreements more fair, but will that stop women from destroying their families? We can outlaw alimony and enforce a more fair division of assets, but will that stop women from dividing up the assets?

Not likely.

Women have always had one power that men will never have:  the power to give birth to new life.

I think that’s where the solution will need to originate.  Some mechanism to mitigate against that power.  The idea of robo-wombs makes me ill, quite frankly, because it’s all too easy to imagine a nightmarish Matrix scenario of rows and rows of human beings coming into existence without the profound human connection pregnancy entails.

But reliable, reversible male birth control.  That could be a very real solution.  No woman can become pregnant without the explicit permission of the man she wishes to father her child.  Pre-gestational agreements determining who gets custody of the child in the event of relationship breakdown could be an amazing bargaining chip.  The role of the law would simply be enforcing those agreements.

If we wrest the power to control the creation of life from women’s hands, and make certain that power is shared, we may have a solution to men’s unwillingness to be enslaved at the whim of women.

Let all the divorce and custody and division of assets laws stand as they are.  Pre-nuptial agreements, when carried out properly, can circumvent all those laws.  Pre-gestational agreements can do the same.  Women who wait until the last minute to get pregnant will be making themselves more amenable to fair agreements, and any woman who knows she will lose custody of her children should she decide to trade in for Husband 2.0 because 1.0 just isn’t doing it for her anymore will have cause to reconsider.

If co-habiting couples can agree on who gets the IKEA couch when they break up, before they have even moved in together, why not have agreements about who keeps the house and the kids BEFORE the kids are even conceived?

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/up_with_the_pre_prenup/

Well, this post took a detour from my original intention, which was to spell out for women how to plan their lives assuming they WILL take time off from work, but it all makes sense at the end of the day.  Women can’t make any plans of the sort without a man to rely on, and men have approximately zero incentive to financially support a woman for years upon years when the result can be utterly ruinous for him.

Male birth control.

That’s where we should be throwing our healthcare dollars.  The ramifications could be life-altering, for all of us.

Sadly, BigPharma isn’t interested in the most promising avenues of research, because BigPharma makes a lot of money selling pills to women every month.

http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/

Perhaps BigPharma is being a little short-sighted, though.  Once men understand just what kind of power a reliable, reversible method of birth control gives them, you might see every last fertile man in the nation lined up for a dose.

And that’s a lot of customers.

A satisfied customer is the best business strategy of all.

Michael LeBoeuf

Women better be brushing up on their own strategy, not only in terms of their jobs, but in terms of negotiating how that baby is going to arrive.  There won’t be any “oopsie I forgot to take my pill” bullshit once we have true equality in birth control.

 

Equality.  That’s the goal, isn’t it?

 

Lots of love,

JB