you're part of the problem, not part of the solution
Phillip Eby wrote a response to Richard's post about the OSDC problem with a softcore porn image being displayed in a lightning talk. He managed to completely miss the point as well as throw in any number of irrelevant sidepoints.
I was going to let it slide (as far as I can see, he is just being needlessly contrary and provocative), but ... to hell with it. He doesn't seem to have comments on his blog, so consider this my response.
The problem is not that "porn" is driving women away from the computer industry.
The problem is the mindset which says "it's fine to show porn in a talk at a conference". This is appalling.
If you don't think that putting up a softcore porn image of a woman is going to offend more women than men, you're out of your mind. I missed the slide in question (I was sitting outside finishing my own talk) but I heard enough from people about it afterwards. Plenty of people, both men and women, were offended. Almost every single female in the audience was offended, in some cases, extremely offended. (That PJE's own wife wouldn't have been offended is no excuse. That's nice for her but it doesn't excuse the slide in question). No-one would even contemplate putting up something offensively racist in a talk, or almost any other form of offensive imagery, but this sort of thing isn't that big an issue for some folks.
PJE also asks in his piece:
P.S. Does anybody know why it's supposed to be so gosh-darn important to have more women in IT?
He then compares it to the under-representation of men in the nursing industry.
Gah. Gah. Gah. I'm almost speechless.
Last time I looked, the nursing industry didn't provide a hostile work environment that actively discouraged men from joining. Plenty of people in the IT industry do this to women. PJE's minimisation of this issue is a great example.
As far as "why is it important to have more women in IT"... well, if he's being genuine here (rather than just contrary for the sake of it) I'm stunned. There's a basic issue of equity here. IT provides an ever increasing number of highly paid skilled jobs. Saying "if there's a hostile work environment that discourages women, too bad for them" is a mind-blowing attitude to me. (I'd have also thought that someone who's all about efficiency and that sort of thing would recognise that a more heterogenous team produces better outcomes all around.)
PJE finishes with this little pearler:
Now, some people will think I'm joking about what I just said, but that will serve only as a helpful illustration of their own bias. You see, when a person thinks that trying to protect men in porn is silly, it's because deep down, they think women need more "protection" than men -- thereby demonstrating their own patriarchal sexist patronizing bullshit attitude!
This is, to not put too fine a point on it, unmitigated bullshit of the highest order. If I saw that the industry I'm in was discriminating against any group, I'd be annoyed. The fact is, though, that it's primarily biased against women. I'm not trying to "protect" women because I think they need to be protected by big strong ol' me (hell, half or more of my female friends could easily beat 10 kinds of crap out of me in a serious fight). I'm annoyed because I see an industry full of people for whom putting up a softcore porn image in a talk in front of an audience isn't that big a deal.
And that is the issue.
posted by anthony @ 5:20 PM
Syndicate
30 Comments:
Well put! And nice for you (unlike PJE) to allow comments.
Well said! I could not believe that PJE merely dismissed the incident as "unprofessional", not a bigger problem.
Some of the best and brightest in my CS studies and IT professional life have been women -- I certainly don't want our field to have a culture which discourages them from contributing!
When I switch on the TV I see what some would call soft porn.
When I walk down the street I am subjected to advertising that some would call soft porn.
Oups, sorry that's called porno chic these days. Can you believe that 20 years ago it was considered hard core.
Five years from now, the porn will be remember, but I wonder ... who will remember what the talk was actually about?
Two words: "Janet Jackson".
I've talked to a few male nurses, and they assure me that nursing is hostile to males. When nurses go on break they tend to talk about things like menstral cycles and other topics that are very uncomfortable for men.
They are slightly more aware of it - if only because it is well known that some people prefer males nurses (sometimes a nurse needs to handle someone's private parts), and thus they need men, while computers women are just a nice to have, but not strictly required.
I tend to be on PJE's side here - though additionally, I can't help but wonder whether people, men or women, who actually do get offended by something as innocent (by today's standards) as playboy have ever had any *real* problems in their lives, or been to the real world out there since the 50's.
Most (almost all) women and men I know would shrug off something like that with a laugh. I guess this is an issue where people will have to agree to disagree.
Boys will be boys, and I'm not sure how much better place the world would be if people were suddenly forced to change their nature by a disgruntled moral minority.
"Boys will be boys"
And I suppose life's one long stag night, is it?
//they tend to talk about things like menstral cycles and other topics that are very uncomfortable for men. //
Uh, these men are _nurses_, right?
"""The problem is the mindset which says "it's fine to show porn in a talk at a conference". This is appalling."""
I agree that it's uncouth at the very least. What I disagree with (and you seem to be missing), is that it doesn't *matter* that more women will be offended than men. The fact that it's impolite *in general* is more than sufficient to make it a bad idea.
By linking this to *women* specifically, you're implying that it's OKAY to show the porn if there *aren't* any women present! I'm saying, it doesn't matter, it's not OK *period*.
And, I'm also saying that making it into something specifically about *women*, is also offensive to many women -- often *far* more offensive than the actual porn could or would *ever* be.
That is, in addition to any "injury" to the actual women present, you and Richard are adding *insult* to a lot of women who *weren't* present.
No one has mentioned the presenter's comments that went with the image. Something along the lines of "We would all be distracted by images like this".
This assumed the audience was a group of men having a laugh together. Did the presenter even realize that there were women present who would not be in on this joke? I heard that this is what was particularly upsetting in a gathering containing so few women.
men or women, who actually do get offended by something as innocent (by today's standards) as playboy have ever had any *real* problems in their lives, or been to the real world out there since the 50's.
Real problems? Like being assumed to be useless, having all your worth viewed though the mirror of your attractiveness, like having people ring the tech-support line you work for and ask to speak to tech-support because your voice is in the wrong pitch range..
So no, I don't believe there is anything wrong with pornography, I use it and have made it in the past, but it has a time and place, where the watchers have consented to see it, in the same way as I think there is nothing wrong with say gay-water-sports-porn but I am pretty sure there would have been a bigger fight on this guys hands had he decided that that counted as light entertainment.
Phillip:
You're missing the point. My point is that no-one would even _consider_ putting up something that was racist, or offensive to a religious group, or other form of offensive material. Yet something like this slips through (and it seems some folks aren't that annoyed by it, see the Anonymous comment here about "boys will be boys")
This _is_ an issue. The speaker in question was not a first time speaker by any means. And yet there was no moment where he said "wait - no, this isn't appropriate". As I said, no-one would consider putting up a photo of people in blackface, or something anti-semitic, or the like. Would you consider that to just be merely "uncouth" too? Then in that case, why isn't soft-core pr0n more of an issue?
On the subject of nursing - well, I don't think the example by the commenter here is anywhere near the same level - but even if it were, I'm not in the nursing profession. I'm in IT. Were I in nursing, I might be trying to draw attention to the issues there.
What really triggered this post, though, was your "why do we care if there are more women in IT". I can only assume you were being contrary for the sake of it here.
"""Would you consider that to just be merely "uncouth" too?"""
Of course I would. Now, I'm making an assumption here that you're probably not. My assumption is that in all of your examples (as well as the OSDC situation), is that someone was being clueless, rather than hateful.
You can use *any* content to be harassing if you actually *intend* to be hateful. I'm using "uncouth" here to describe ignorance and insensitivity to the feelings of others. There's a difference between that and being deliberately offensive with the intent to exclude or demoralize.
"""What really triggered this post, though, was your "why do we care if there are more women in IT". I can only assume you were being contrary for the sake of it here."""
Not at all. However, what you may not be aware of is that during my time as an IT manager, I had a department with an exact 50-50 male/female ratio for like 90% of the time, and I hired the same number of women as men. So from *my* perspective, why would *more* be required?
Your next question should then be, "How did you manage to get that many women to work for you?"
I'm about to post another article to my blog, though, with the answer to that question.
"""This assumed the audience was a group of men having a laugh together. Did the presenter even realize that there were women present who would not be in on this joke? I heard that this is what was particularly upsetting in a gathering containing so few women."""
So *here* is the real problem, finally! It's because women felt left out (and considered to not be of equal worth), not just a bunch of moralists complaining about a relatively innocent thing.
Phillip said: "However, what you may not be aware of is that during my time as an IT manager, I had a department with an exact 50-50 male/female ratio for like 90% of the time, and I hired the same number of women as men. So from *my* perspective, why would *more* be required?"
Don't be silly. Your original post said "Does anybody know why it's supposed to be so gosh-darn important to have more women in IT?". It did *not* say "I already have a 50-50 male/female ratio in my workplace, why do I need more?". The discussion is about the IT industry as a whole, and you can't post something that inflammatory and then pretend you were talking about this one time when you were an IT manager when you were clearly claiming to make a much more general point.
"""you were clearly claiming to make a much more general point."""
Um, what point does a *question* make? It's a *question*.
As in something you ask, to get information. I've never seen a need to get *more* women into IT, so I'm asking why everybody else thinks it's desirable. The workplace isn't a social club or singles meet, so trying to force the gender balance in some particular direction doesn't make any sense to me.
Yeah, there aren't a lot of women around in a lot of IT departments. But the reasons I ended up with more women in mine, had NOTHING to do with wanting "more women in IT." I really didn't care what gender the people were, it was just a side effect of our hiring practices that we ended up with a lot of women (relatively speaking). It wasn't because I wanted "more women" or necessarily women at all. I wanted qualified *people*, some of whom just happened to be women. And *that*, I think, is the way things should be.
So I still don't understand why "more women" is considered desirable, and my question remains open. Even AMK's answer of "because we're wasting talent" isn't really a good answer, from my POV. If that's the real issue, then why isn't anyone saying, "we need more talent in IT", as opposed to "we need more women"?
Phillip,
First off - you claim that I misinterpreted you. Based on what you've written since, I'd actually say that I was in fact overly generous in my interpretation.
It's not as simple as saying "hire more women" and "don't hire assholes". That's a facile argument that avoids the real issue.
You can't hire what doesn't exist. In the last 10 years or so, I've reviewed countless resumes for a significant number of developer positions. I'd make a handwaving estimate that maybe one in twenty (or even one in thirty) were from female candidates.
Why might that be? I can't imagine - perhaps because IT is seen as not actually a nice place to work for women?
There's more than just encountering hostility in the workplace - I'd actually suggest that this is one of the least of the problems, because
there are already various mechanisms in place to counter this (in most places, with legal teeth backing them).
There's also encountering it in other venues, such as conferences and university. If you don't think a lightning talk that focussed on Acme::Playmate, made comments that "now we can treat women literally as objects", and showed a shot of the current playmate of the month (twice!) reflects a thoughtless indifference towards the feelings of others and projects a hostile environment to the women in the audience, then I don't know what would. And lest you claim again that I'm just trying to be the big protector of women - I've actually spoken to a bunch of the women in the audience, and they were offended, in some cases a great deal.
Is one talk alone going to turn someone off IT? No - but it's all cumulative. One thing you can do to minimise this effect is to stand up and point out when it's wrong.
For you, writing off 51% of the population's potential contributions to the field you and I are both in doesn't seem that big an issue. I do see it as an issue. I also see it as a basic issue of equality.
Contra your post, I'm not proposing a mass brainwashing of the unenlightened. What I am doing, when I see something that is fucked up, is standing up and saying "this is broken". This will hopefully encourage
others to do the same.
"""If you don't think a lightning talk that ... reflects a thoughtless indifference towards the feelings of others"""
Um, there's a word for "thoughtless indifference towards the feelings of others", and I used it to describe the behavior, so I don't know where you're getting this from.
"""One thing you can do to minimise this effect is to stand up and point out when it's wrong."""
My point is that making it a "woman thing" is also thoughtless indifference to the feelings of women. The right way to protest something like this is to call it rude -- NOT to call it rude ONLY because there were women present.
You still seem to not be getting the part where my position on this is *stronger* than yours: it was rude to *everyone*, not just the women. Making it a woman thing not only weakens the position (i.e. it would've been okay if no women were there), but also singles women out in an unfavorable way.
"""For you, writing off 51% of the population's potential contributions to the field you and I are both in doesn't seem that big an issue."""
Huh? Wha? Where are you getting that from? The people I mostly wrote off are *men*.
"""Contra your post, I'm not proposing a mass brainwashing of the unenlightened. What I am doing, when I see something that is fucked up, is standing up and saying "this is broken"."""
Great, now take a page from the same book and try doing it in a way that doesn't still single out women as being *different* from "the rest of us". That was and is my complaint with the publicity around this matter. If your goal is to make women feel like a welcome *part* of IT (instead of an intrusion on the boys' club), then women should *never have been mentioned* as the reason for not displaying porn at the conference.
Because what that says to them is "you're the newbies here".
"""This will hopefully encourage
others to do the same."""
It certainly encouraged me to do the same. :) Specifically, to point out that making it a woman-specific thing is *also* offensive to women.
It's more than sufficient to treat the issue as being impolite and unprofessional to *people* at the conference, without singling out women as requiring special treatment. This marginalizes women rather than including them, and is a terrific example of the kind of thing that men don't "get" about "what women want".
"""You can't hire what doesn't exist. In the last 10 years or so, I've reviewed countless resumes for a significant number of developer positions. I'd make a handwaving estimate that maybe one in twenty (or even one in thirty) were from female candidates."""
That's a good indication your position design and advertising was male-biased. Women are much more likely to apply for positions where they can do more than just programming. If you look for well-rounded people who can work as a true team, you'll get fewer males and more females.
(But this is just another example of how all the thrashing around about "getting more women in IT" usually misses most of the real issues involved...)
My goals never centered on getting more women in IT, but it's a natural side effect of creating a more efficient and effective *team*. The qualities of real teams are attractive to women, and more of them can actually manage being part of one, than men can.
And again, calling people out as subgroups for special treatment doesn't make them feel like part of the team. If you want more women in IT, you can't do it by treating people of different sexes differently, you have to start treating *everybody* the way you'd treat women. With respect, appreciation, and various other "we're all in this together" qualities. When you do that, you get results -- and inclusiveness.
However, setting out to "get more women in IT" (whether by attacking porn or any other means) actually sends the wrong message to women. It says, "There are so few women in IT currently that they're an endangered species." And that's not an attractive message either.
The truth is that there are *plenty* of women in IT. And they get stuck in what get considered support roles or otherwise underpaid positions because few companies create well-rounded positions that include both human contact *and* coding, that still have decent pay and advancement opportunity. What you and other people are usually *really* saying is, "Where are all the female hackers?" (i.e. women who just want to program and nothing else).
And my response is, I don't really want to hire anybody who *only* wants to program -- and it doesn't matter whether they're male or female. If you're looking for programmer-specialists, you will find it's far less likely that women apply, because few women want to *specialize* in programming. They certainly do exist, but they're much rarer even than your 1-in-20 suggestion implies.
If you want to include women more generally, you need to create *positions* that are attractive to women, not just whine about how few women apply for jobs that are built around male concepts of IT work.
Sure - that must be it, you and I have had different experiences, clearly yours are the valid ones.
I'm really not interested in continuing this further. I don't believe either of us is even vaguely likely to convince the other of anything.
PJE: Huh? Wha? Where are you getting that from? The people I mostly wrote off are *men*.
You previously wrote:
P.S. Does anybody know why it's supposed to be so gosh-darn important to have more women in IT?
"""You previously wrote:
P.S. Does anybody know why it's supposed to be so gosh-darn important to have more women in IT?"""
You left out the part where you explain how that's "writing off" women.
Reading comprehension tip: take careful note of the *question mark* at the end of the sentence, as it's not just there for decoration.
Also, take note of all the many things I did NOT say, that everybody seems to be projecting into what I said, because the only way they can understand my position is to slot me into some kind of pro-porn, anti-women pigeonhole.
I'm a pragmatist; I believe in results. When I hear people who (by their own admission) can't fill their IT positions with women spouting off theories as to *why* that is, it seems to me that they would do well to listen to somebody who's actually been successful at what they claim to be interested in.
Because then they might learn something that would help them achieve their goals.
And if they spent time seeking the *answers* to the questions I asked, instead of acting as though they were rhetorical questions intended to support a position they disagree with, they'd learn even more. (In other words, I don't ask *idle* questions.)
Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to bitch about *other* people's practices than to think deeply about the paradigm. Check out the comments on your own blog, Richard, including especially some of the ones from the women. Yes, they're saying porn in the workplace is inappropriate. But you'll also see that that's not even close to *all* that they want. One wrote:
"""Not only would we get more women, we'd get a strong computing community. People grounded in fields of interest beyond just computing."""
This is where the *real* meat is, and you guys are ignoring it altogether, despite women saying *outright* that this is what they need/want in the field, and my experience showing that it can actually work in practice.
So, may I suggest that you seriously *consider* the question? Because when you get to the other side of it, you'll have a better understanding of what the women who posted to your blog are *talking about*, and a better chance of envisioning an IT field in which, as a happy coincidental side effect, there happen to be about as many women as men.
Hum that discussion seems far too impassioned.
PJE , can't you see you use provocation but then you are disapointed of others reacting to it (instead of real content). You should try to better dissociate your topics and explain them in a way more reachable to your audience. Yes it would be better if they could dissociate by themselves.
On the fact that having women in IT means proposing jobs that suit them and that would be really productive for IT, I fully agree. If we want women in IT it's to change IT ways of doing wich for now are maybe too much male-ish. And as for manything you first have to bootstrap the change.
Seems to me that PJE has climbed on a high horse belonging to a different argument and is now hell bent on portraying himself as more progressive/liberal/informed than Richard and company.
First off, we have the insistence that the adult entertainment industry is actually "woman friendly", although I'd argue that this is something of airbrushed view of reality if you consider the bigger picture, not just in the context of "woman friendly" - PJE says we can't focus on gender, remember - but in the wider context of being "human friendly". I'm not sure whether this was any more than "yay for porn" and a critique of those who reacted because of the material in question.
We're also treated to a projection of some distorted version of the original criticism ("insisting that the workplace must be made soft and delicate to accomodate them") and a lecture on the evils of positive discrimination. I think most of this overshot the mark whilst bringing up all sorts of bizarre observations of only tangential relevance ("to be anti-porn is to be anti-woman, even if you are a woman") and apparently seeking to belittle the underlying issues ("why there are so few men in the nursing profession", "why it's supposed to be so gosh-darn important to have more women in IT").
Then we have the clarification that PJE was actually talking about most of this in the context of his successful hiring policies. But, he says, "If women aren't applying because they aren't interested in IT, is that really a problem?"
Finally, we have the lecture on how backward everyone else is, with a bit of projection ("none of the guys are really asking how to get more women in IT", "how can we get more women in IT without actually changing anything", ...) and the assertion that all the men are "man-reading". Yet again, PJE is the forward-thinker, berating everyone for not having read comments from women.
Despite all the bluster, however, we are left with some interesting questions: if PJE says that some women (and some men, too, I guess) say that IT should be more about doing things with computers than about computers themselves, how does one encourage people (men and women) to study the latter? And given that computer science studies have moved away from pure mathematics, low-level computer architecture in recent years, has this made any difference to the gender imbalance?
Is there any consensus around such matters? Or should we expect another round of "spot the Neanderthal" from PJE for even asking that question?
The real problem with my posts is that I tend to assume that things which are blindingly obvious to me will at least be obvious to others once I've pointed them out.
Since I never set out to write a series of articles discussing the problem and proposing solutions (as opposed to an off-topic rant that was mostly about patronizing attitudes towards women that offend some women in IT a *lot* more than porn itself does), I didn't spend much time elaborating what (to me) was obvious. In my very first post, I pointed out that you need to pay attention to *all* of what women want, which includes being part of the team rather than separated out, respected rather than protected, etc.
To me, the broader implications of these things are obvious; e.g., that the people complaining about porn are missing the forest for the trees, because they're not seriously considering what women say about what they really want, but just jumping to conclusions based on stereotypes.
This was implicit to me from rant one, and it's easy to see if you go back and read it from that perspective. In particular, notice that I said porn was inappropriate in the workplace, period -- which is actually a *stronger* position than, "won't someone think of the women?"
And, since the women posting on Richard's blog had already (from my POV) spelled out the rest of what they want in detail (apart from the offense at protectiveness issue, that my wife brought up), I didn't see a need to repeat their comments. I assumed that people would pay attention to what was said by them, without me needing to repeat it.
So, to me, the context of the first post was abundantly obvious; to other people, it's not, which is why I've had to say so much since to clarify the context. Oh well, live and learn.
In the meantime, though, you're still projecting that my question about *why* is a rhetorical one. It's not now, and never was. Every question in the paragraph where it appears is a serious question, and if you spend time *thinking* about those questions instead of treating them as rhetorical devices, you might have realized some highly relevant things, that I've mostly had to spell out in detail since then because nobody (except AMK, as far as I can tell) bothered to actually *ask* the questions instead of dismissing them as a rhetorical device to support a position that I don't hold in the first place.
(If I didn't *want* women in IT, what *difference* would it make whether they're offended by men being overly protective and singling them out? Why even bother writing the post? It would've been more efficient for me to just say nothing.)
Meanwhile, you seem to think that it's only my later posts that are "more liberal than thou"... but the first one was, too! Attempting to "protect" women from porn, whether it's exposure in the workplace or by trying to prevent them from being in the business of porn, is blatantly chauvinistic. So if your goal is to not be chauvinistic, you need to take that into consideration.
And that was the entire point of my first post, plain and simple: in your rush to appear woman-friendly, avoid being patronizing.
Yes, it was a rant. But *not* a pro-"porn in the workplace" one, and not even a generally pro-porn one. If I was really going to write a *pro-porn* article, I'd put it on a sex and relationships blog, as I implied at the end of the original article.
"In the meantime, though, you're still projecting that my question about *why* is a rhetorical one."
No, I think most people interpreted that as a genuine question, and Anthony was clearly surprised that you would ask such a thing. It may be the case that you're being clever here (ie. IT is male-biased and we should therefore not even attempt to change IT, but instead to invent something else which isn't IT), or perhaps it's an extremely vague nod towards existing multidisciplinary applications of IT.
And on the subject of projection, you wrote as a comment here, "By linking this to *women* specifically, you're implying that it's OKAY to show the porn if there *aren't* any women present! I'm saying, it doesn't matter, it's not OK *period*."
Well, we believe you about what you're saying your position is, but are you really also saying that Richard and Anthony believe it to be acceptable for any professional gathering to have a stag night (bachelor party) atmosphere? I doubt it. Instead I think you charged into the room with guns blazing when the bad guys were actually next door.
As I said in an earlier comment, I've given up arguing with PJE, but I will just point out what should be obvious:
"""
And on the subject of projection, you wrote as a comment here, "By linking this to *women* specifically, you're implying that it's OKAY to show the porn if there *aren't* any women present! I'm saying, it doesn't matter, it's not OK *period*."
"""
Of course I wouldn't think it was OK if there were no women present. Implying otherwise is a gratuitous cheap shot, and I cannot possibly see how what I wrote could be interpreted this way.
"""Of course I wouldn't think it was OK if there were no women present."""
I didn't say you'd *think* that, I said it was *implied* by your statements (and Richard's), and somebody who thought porn in a presentation was OK to begin with, could *easily* think that was your position from your and Richard's statements.
Saying to someone, "you should've thought of the possibility that women would be present" is the same as saying their behavior would've been OK had there *not* been women present -- otherwise, why wouldn't you have said, "you should've thought of the possibility that *people* would be offended"? (As opposed to women specifically.)
"""I cannot possibly see how what I wrote could be interpreted this way."""
Welcome to the club. ;-)
No one has mentioned the presenter's comments that went with the image. Something along the lines of "We would all be distracted by images like this".
I believe it was more like...
"A note to presenters, please do not put distracting images on the wall behind you during your talk".
It would seem to have distracted EVERYBODY, both men and women, for differing reasons. So well that the original intent seems to have been entirely lost...
Hello all, this is the woman who walked out, and if anyone wants to know why you can just ask me :)
Hopefully at some point I'll have time to write up more of a response, but for now, I'l just give a precis.
The driving concern for me is not to do with being prudish or anti-sex or anything like that. It is not with images of nudity or of sex or anything like that.
If anything, I'd like to see more of it! The issue is the unquestioned assupmtion that was is 'sexual' is also just what is appealing to certain males. I find this insulting to humanity as a whole, including those certain males ;)
So, I guess you caould say that my reasons for walking out were to do with the psychology of groups, and with history, with repetition, and, I guess, with subtleties like when it is ok to use the word 'nigger'. and when it isn't.
re: the whole 'boys will be boys' argument. Of course they will,and that is absolutely fine, and it will probably be important for some time tio come, if not always, to have space for that to happen. Space for boys to be boys and girls to be girls and gay-androids-from-epsilon-erdani to be ...well...you know...
But ask yourself, why is it still so common that the professional sphere, the public sphere, is still the place where 'boys will be boys and everybody else will be boys too and they had better damn-well like it'?
So, I'm ending with a question, not an answer, at this point...
Maybe all of you'd like to comment on this text: How the Web Prevents Rape.
Post a Comment
<< Home