A few weeks ago, Jacob Zuma was named the new head of the African National Congress. This is part of a larger struggle in South Africa against the policies of the ANC, which has been carrying out a neo-liberal agenda ever since it gained power. Zuma is the left-wing candidate; Zuma’s supporters sang Lethu Mshini Wami (bring me my machine gun). I haven’t read much discussion of this on the blogs I read, which surprised me. I don’t know enough about South African politics to offer any analysis of the ANC. But I wanted to comment on the discussion of Zuma’s election, or the lack of it. There’s definitely been more attention among the socialist blogs I read than the feminist blogs, and the analysis is a little bit like the paragraph above. From Lenin’s Tomb:
Zuma is far from the ideal man to lead such a fight, burdened as he is with corruption charges over bribes from a French arms company, and he is actually doing his best to present his policies as pro-business. He is in all probability an opportunist who has harnessed a unique chance based on the unrest. However, the fact that he has successfully channelled the energy of this revolt into a leadership bid which may lead to him taking power in the ANC (but not the country) is itself significant. And however disappointing Zuma is likely to be (Chavez, he ain’t – even Chavez isn’t always Chavez), the very fact of ousting the wretched Mbeki may give further confidence to the already insurgent working class.
There’s something missing from these stories. Zuma is a rapist. He was acquitted – they always are. But in 2005 he raped 31 year old woman who was a friend of the family. I wrote about the trial last year:
The trial sounds hideous, and familiar. She was put on trial and her sexual history, including other times she had been raped, was put into evidence. When Zuma took the stand he argued that she consented by wearing a knee-length skirt and complaining that she didn’t have a boyfriend: “She had never in the past come to my house dressed in a skirt. Including times when I was living in Pretoria. When she came to me in a skirt after those talks I referred to earlier on, well, it told me something.”
This has been treated as a side-note by many different people. From AP Zuma was acquitted of rape last year, but could still face bribery charges in a multimillion-dollar arms deal. From WSWS “Zuma was sacked from office as deputy president by Mbeki and then faced a further trial on rape charges last year, in which he was acquitted.”
Maybe it’s just that the New Zealand left has developed some clarity on these issues, but if a powerful man is accused of rape and is acquitted that doesn’t mean he’s not a rapist. It means he is a rapist.
The inability to call a rapist a rapist displays an indifference to rape as a political issue. When asked in 1999, 1 in 3 Johannesburg women said they had been raped in the last year – they deserve more than one line in an analysis of the political meaning of Zuma’s victory.
if a powerful man is accused of rape and is acquitted that doesn’t mean he’s not a rapist. It means he is a rapist.
You couldn’t possibly mean what these words actually say.
> if a powerful man is accused of rape and is acquitted that doesn’t mean he’s
> not a rapist. It means he is a rapist.
Maia, may I ask which of the following three positions is yours? Because there is no fourth.
1. No powerful man can be falsely accused of rape.
2. All powerful men can avoid to be tried due to a false accusation of rape.
3. When a powerful man is tried for rape, being convicted increases the probability he was falsely accused.
In case it is not damn obvious, I believe they are all are irrational, and that you either made a mistake in your post, or owe someone an apology.
Heh. We posted at the same time. Does anyone wonder we quoted the exact same
words? Knee-jerk reaction of the unthinking tools of the patriarchy, without doubt.
You couldn’t possibly mean what these words actually say.
Oh, she could mean it. Delightful to see you again on the Internet, Tom, and amusing in the extreme that we have the same job.
I do mean what I say. I am a feminist; I believe women when they say they’re raped.
But in this case I was talking particularly about the dynamics of a trial of a powerful man. There are so many obstacles between a woman who has been raped and the trial of her rapist. These become grow by an order of magnitude when the man involved has power. Two percent of rape complaints to police are fictious – those don’t get to trial, unless the woman has far more power than the man involved (such as a white woman and a black man in the American south). Most women who have been raped by powerful men never get a trial. For the few who do, not being able to persuade a jury beyond reasonable doubt that they’re telling the turth, doesn’t mean anything.
The former Assisstant Commissioner of police Clint Rickards was acquitted twice. Doesn’t make him any less a rapist, same with Zuma.
Petar – it is completely unacceptable to call women irrational on a feminist blog. Don’t do it again.
Maia
I’m surprised that you haven’t marked this a “feminists only” thread.
Since you haven’t, though, can I just point out that the “they” of which Petar makes mention should not be understood to refer to “women” but rather to the three propositions he advances as the only possible interpretations of your statement to the effect that the acquittal of powerful men accused of rape is proof that they are in fact guilty of rape .
Petar:
Criticism and disagreement is welcome; sneering at feminists, as this comment does, is not welcome. Please moderate your behavior while you post here. Thanks.
Maia, I completely agree that when a powerful politician gets cleared of rape at a trial, that doesn’t prove he was innocent in any way; obviously the courts are biased and completely useless in a case like this.
However, I don’t agree that an acquittal means that the man committed rape.
In the particular case you’re posting about — where the man’s defense hinged on “she wore a skirt, so she was obviously asking for it” — it seems to me extremely likely that he’s a rapist. And it’s disturbing that this isn’t held against him.
Maia’s right, though not completely clear.
There are two types of rape, again: moral and criminal.
Moral rape is defined by the victim. So, when someone accuses a man (powerful or otherwise) of rape, she obviously believes she was raped. And since that’s all that is needed, if she accuses someone, it means she was raped, at least in a moral sense. *
I assume this is what Maia is saying, because I am close to 100% positive that she is aware of the distinction between legally-enforced rape and what I am referring to as “moral rape.” And I am also close to 100% positive that Maia knows the law takes a much more limited view (albeit problematic in many respects). While it is true that the accusation/conviction %age for rape should be a hell of a lot higher than it is now, it isn’t ever going to be 100%, nor should it be. I mean really, does anyone here think Maia doesn’t know that?
So c’mon folks, it’s just a semantics issue. I think. AFAIK, Maia doesn’t use the terms “moral rape” and “criminal rape”, and that’s probably what’s going on.
And in THIS case there’s probably no need to make the distinction anyway. From the facts of this particular case, it certainly sounds like the accusation was accurate in both a moral rape and criminal rape context.
But the general statement is less so, though I think it is accurate applied to moral rape.
*Obviously the “big two” exceptions still apply, of misidentification and the rare active false accusation driven by malice. I don’t think those are common though. And even the misidentification one doesn’t change the fact that <i.she was raped, it changes only the issue of who should properly be accused. Misidentification is more common than many folks think but it obviously isn’t the case here, so Maia’s statement remains correct.
Sailor, that is an extremely generous interpretation of what she wrote.
What she wrote was perfectly clear. If he’s convicted, he’s guilty, and if he’s acquitted, he’s still guilty. That’s very different from saying that an acquittal is often meaningless in cases with such a skewed power dynamic.
In any case, I can’t think of a better way to reduce the impact of an otherwise laudable post than to insert that little tidbit.
I also have to pipe up and say that I think her equation of Petar’s criticism of her ideas with a criticism of her personally was inappropriate. He wasn’t terribly insightful, but that’s no reason to accuse him of ad-hom.
I agree with Sailorman’s interpretation, and I “have” to say that the picking apart of this phrase of hers strikes me as distinctly masturbatory.
Pingback: Feminist Critics
> Moral rape is defined by the victim. So, when someone accuses a man
> (powerful or otherwise) of rape, she obviously believes she was raped.
I know of two cases in which I would stake my life on the fact that the woman doing the accusing did not believe she had been raped. But lets assume that I am mistaken.
> And since that’s all that is needed, if she accuses someone, it means she
> was raped, at least in a moral sense.
I have no problem with accepting the above as definition of the term “moral rape”. But I am not quite clear. Does this also make the man a rapist? Or even a “moral rapist”? Because if it does, even in the case of the woman accusing the pope of raping her while she was held in a mental facility on a different continent, then the term is not very meaningful.
And in general, I think that no one can possibly disagree that a powerful man in today’s world can get away with a lot – the more powerful, the easier it is. I will also note that I believe that today, in the Western world, it is harder to do so than at any point of human history, anywhere. I will also note that powerful women can also get away with a lot, although in any society so far, it had been a lot harder for women to become powerful enough.
> > Knee-jerk reaction of the unthinking tools of the patriarchy,
> > without doubt.
>
> Criticism and disagreement is welcome; sneering at feminists, as
> this comment does, is not welcome. Please moderate your behavior
> while you post here. Thanks.
Ampersand, it may be hard to believe, but this was not meant as a sneer at feminists, and I am genuinely sorry to have posted something that could be seen as such. I actually believe that it is a “knee-jerk reaction”, in the sense that the ‘rapist!’ statement brings an instinctive response. And given that I am certainly a product of the patriarchy, and that my comment can be seen as a hurried defense of it, I just constructed a statement which describes our actions in negative, but factual terms.
As for the chain of reasoning that equates “I believe this statement as written equates to a set of irrational positions” to “Women are irrational”… I am speechless.
When Zuma took the stand he argued that she consented by wearing a knee-length skirt and complaining that she didn’t have a boyfriend: “She had never in the past come to my house dressed in a skirt. Including times when I was living in Pretoria. When she came to me in a skirt after those talks I referred to earlier on, well, it told me something.”
Just in case anyone missed it.
I’m sure that if ANY man gets acquitted with this defense, rape was committed.
ahunt
There’s no reason to suppose anyone missed it, and nobody has disputed your second proposition.
Pingback: Feminist Critics
In any case, I can’t think of a better way to reduce the impact of an otherwise laudable post than to insert that little tidbit.
I dunno, obsessive trolling about one little tidbit that shouldn’t be controversial seems like a good way to reduce the impact of an otherwise laudable post.
On the actual substance of the post, I think the rape issue compromises Zuma’s ability to be a real leftist leader much more than the corruption issue. Both dealing with the corruption charges as well as the actual practice of corruption would make his government less efficient at pursuing its ostensible program. But the rape reveals that he won’t even be *trying* to address the distinctive concerns of half the citizens of South Africa. (Another issue is that we white people have to be careful how we talk about this, so that we neither go easy on Zuma’s crime nor reinforce the stereotype of the sexually savage black man.)
It’s interesting how this one sentence elicited a much stronger reaction than her post did or has so far. Also interesting but not surprising is one point of the posting which is that his rape case doesn’t seem to be getting much mention from leftists.
Also that in a position of power, be it in government or in law enforcement, as Maia said, an acquittal clearly doesn’t mean all that much. The system’s so stacked in their favor in the United States, in New Zealand and just about everywhere else that the judge and/or jury process is a pretty meaningless litmus test of their guilt or innocence. It doesn’t really answer that question at all. And if you really give a damn about innocent powerful men not getting their due or the benefit of the doubt when they get acquitted of rape and instead, sitting in a sea of doubt and skepticism, then push for cleaning up the damn justice system which elevates them above everyone else. Then, maybe their acquittals will actually mean something, like they’re innocent.
Rape prosecutions, when they actually happen, are difficult for any women who’s been raped and is having a case prosecuted. There’s plenty that is academic written on that and exactly why this is. But if you sit in cases where women are raped by people who aren’t in government or law enforcement, it’s still a different world from sitting in cases where women have been raped or coerced into oral copulation by law enforcement officers for example.
Everything that’s difficult is amplified about 10 times or so. The defaming and even criminalization of the victim. The lack of enthusiasm and vigor among some prosecutors in rape cases is much more so when they have to prosecute those that their profession is essentially in bed with. The judges’ doubts. And so forth. Maybe that’s one reason why it often takes months or years for cases like this to get reported at all.
Even in strong cases, police officers most often are acquitted. And we’ve learned that even offspring of important politicians in government enjoy similar results.
I think, Radfem, that nobody wants to take issue with the main thrust of the post. And I’d be surprised if anybody wants to challenge your contention that when rich, influential men – with access to top-flight lawyers and with friends in high places – are declared innocent of a crime in a court of law, then such a finding is by no means a guarantee that those same rich men are innocent in fact rather than just in law. The one element of the post which seems exceptionable is Maia’s affirmation that rich men accused of rape are guilty by dint of having being found innocent. But it has been made clear by a moderator – Mandolin – that further debate in this regard will be regarded as “masturbatory”. Hence the thread’s comparative neglect.
Well, I disagree that this is what she actually said. That they’re guilty because they were acquitted. I think those acquittals as I’ve said have been tainted by an unjust, inequally applied justice system to the point that they’ve lost much of their meaning. I might be wrong, but I read Maia’s statement to be an indictment of the justice system that has a crappy record with most rape prosecutions period, let alone those involving powerful men. And that she believes women when they’ve given accounts of being raped and are faced with a system that pretty much past and present brands them as liars especially if they are poor and/or are women of color.
Well, if that is truly the case with the “neglect”, then that’s very telling as well that the only way this issue can be discussed is through the prism of now it might negatively impact powerful men, the miniscule number of those that get prosecuted at any rate. Like I said, if there’s so much concern about this, then why not work on fixing a system that gives them preferential treatment so that when they get acquitted by a judge or a jury, it actually means something like they are innocent. But if you do, don’t be surprised if more than a few of the powerful men whose “rights” you are defending are the ones who do the balking.
And I’m not saying that to be difficult. I’m saying that if you’ve witnessed these kinds of prosecutions in action, you’ll see what I mean by needing to fix this system so that there’s some meaningful credibility attached to it in all cases including the verdict of innocent for powerful men tried for crimes like rape.
I don’t believe that Maia ever used the term “rich men” either. She used the term, “powerful men”. There’s tremendous overlap between the two but they’re not exactly the same thing.
For example, a law enforcement officer or a prosecuting attorney in the United States or New Zealand may not be rich, but in cases like these where they are charged and tried, they certainly are powerful.
Oh, not “will be regarded as masturbatory.” WAS regarded as masturbatory.
Radfem
There are, I’m sure, plenty of feminists in good standing who, having read Maia’s post, did not then go on to make a comment – probably for the reason I gave: that they wholeheartedly agreed with its main thrust and could say nothing more constructive than “hear hear”.
There’s absolutely no reason to suppose that the lack of commenting was due to anything more sinister than that. You’re not suggesting, I hope, that a thread which had lain dormant for a day, and to which anyone was free to post anything they wanted, was somehow being highjacked, are you? A couple of queries as to what Maia meant by
and which she confirmed in comment 5 meant exactly what it seemed to say – and that was all.
And you were quite right to correct me re: “powerful”, rather than merely “wealthy” men. My mistake.
Please don’t try to put words in my mouth. I have not suggested or ever suggested that anything “sinister” was taking place. Nor any “hijacking” of any threads so please do not imply that I did or said or intended either in my comments. I commented on the direction that this thread has taken in terms of what commentary and discussion has taken place. In terms of the prism through which these issues are often viewed in discussions.
OTOH,
I believe it was you who attributed the “comparative neglect” to something more negative at work. I believed that she provided some context for this statement in a recent comment.
As for comment #5, it also spoke to what the reality is in the criminal justice system in different places when it comes to powerful men accused, charged and tried of crimes like rape.
I am curious to find out what maia really meant by this.
I don’t think anyone disagrees that generally, powerful men (and women, incidentally, though that is not the thread topic) are more able to escape prosecution than are others.
Of course in the US, anyone who knows how the system works (which are too few people) already understands that “not guilty” /= “innocent.” This appears to be true for any crime, but even more so for rape. I suspect it holds in other criminal systems as well.
for powerful people, it’s sort of like “not guilty” REALLY /= “innocent”, where the bold represents some sort of super-duper ‘REALLY not conclusive’ thing. But it’s still a conclusion of “not innocent,” as opposed to a conclusion of “guilty.”
It looks to me that Miai made a universal statement and people that disagree with her on a lot of things used that as an opportunity to criticize her post. When I read that line I figured that Robert would sooner or later question it, even though if she’d restated it as “typically” (or the equivalent) it’d be pretty hard to question.
Your link is broken.
Daran:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/dec2007/anc-d22.shtml
Pingback: Feminist Critics
So, then, answer this; how does this affect this man’s political future, and the future direction of the party he currently heads? Is his apparent attitude towards sex and rape going to affect his position? If not (and given the testimony offered I’d say that this guy certainly fits my definition of ‘rapist’), what can be done to change that?
If the corruption trial that he’s apparently headed for actually occurs, what effect will that have?
One deeply chilling aspect of Zuma’s rape trial was the way in which he framed his defense to make it seem that he was being prosecuted for his cultural beliefs. I wrote about it here, and here is a quote from the article in The New York Times, which you can find here:
http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf
That statement is not true. It is one of those things repeated so often it as accepted as true, despite the fact that it’s basis is false. As such, it is something that needs to be challenged every time it is mentioned until it is no longer presented as fact. Bad facts make for bad policies and bad opinions, and I know everyone wants to have the “best” opinions out there.
Which drives me to ask just how accurate his depiction of his culture is. And gives pause to those who praise multi-culturalism.
RonF:
Oh please. Multiculturalism, as a stance towards the world, as an academic practice, equals neither moral nor cultural relativism. It is, at best, intellectually dishonest of you to use Zuma’s twisted defense as representative of what multiculturalism stands for.
Sorry for my silence. It’s generally a bad idea to post something controversial and then go to the world of no internet. But this time of year in New Zealand is dedicated to sea, sand and sun.
I think, possibly, I did prove my point about the NZ left. Because I didn’t think my statement would be controversial. I was talking about this with a friend of mine and the first thing they’d thought about when they’d read about the struggle within the ANC was ‘is this the rapist’. I am not going to vote in the NZ election that happens this year because the co-leader of the party I had voted for in the last election said that Clint Rickards had consensual sex with Louise Nicholas – and most people understand this decision. I think seeing over the course of several years just how much a powerful man can
I’d leave out the sentence if I was to write the post again. Actually I’d write a completely different post. I was reaching for something more and stopped before I got there, I may try again.
But what I meant, something I stand by, is that forces that act against any accusation of rape going to trial are huge. Apathy and misogyny are systemic in the police and justice system. Those forces are even stronger when the man involved is powerful, when he has people to act in his interests, when he can afford a legal team (or knows someone who can subsidise him), when he’d make a dangerous enemy.
The police and prosecutors are screening for false accusations. Often they’re operating under the assumption that women are lying. Some police officers/prosecutors delibrately give rape survivors a hard time, and make it clear they don’t believe the women invovled. This process means a hell a lot of women never make it to court – there are a lot of false negatives. But it doesn’t let through women who haven’t been raped, particularly not for powerful men.
I’m not saying all legal systems work this way at all times (to choose an obvious example – it didn’t work that way for white women and black men in the South). But it’sthe way it works in NZ, and having read the judgement in the Zuma case, I’m fairly sure it works that way in South Africa and Radfem seems to know enough about how it works in the US.
Thanks for all the comments – I’ve enjoyed reading them now I’ve got back.
Demonspawn – That brings up something else I meant to mention. I’m not saying that men might not be falsely convicted of rape through misidentification. It it is completely different when a woman was raped, but identifies a wrong person as the rapist (this seems to be what your article is talking about with DNA evidence, DNA evidence would be meaningless if the defence was consent). I would expect the misidentification rates to be the same as with any other circumstances.
Sailorman – You’re sort of on the mark with your paraphrase, although I’m not sure about hte terms. While yes I believe any woman who says she is raped as a matter of course, and my definition of rape does go beyond the legal definition of rape, that wasn’t quite what I was saying.
For a case to go to trial what the woman states happened would have to meet the legal definition of rape (otherwise it would be dismissed sometime earlier in the process).
You seem to be implying that if the level of reasonable doubt can’t be met (whether for reasons that are good, or monumentally stupid as in this case) then it’s not ‘legal rape’. And I’d disagree. If a murder, burglary, or whatever takes place there was still a ‘legal murder’ or a ‘legal burglary’ whether or not someone gets convicted or found not guilty.
Thanks for the reply.
Just to clarify, though: when i say “legal rape” I mean “behavior that meets the criteria for convicting someone of rape.” I’m talking about the rapist’s actions, not the legal outcome. So extending your murder/burglary example to rape, I think we’re in complete agreement.
I’m puzzled by this. Did you even look at his cite?
The article said nothing about DNA evidence. Greer’s paper focussed on a single issue: The origin of the claim that two percent of rape reports to the police are false. He shows that the myriad citations for this figure within feminist academic literature all, without exception, lead back to a single source: The remarks of a judge whose speech was prepared by members of the New York City Rape Squad, “trained in judo, [but] not as far as can be ascertained in statistical analysis”, whose “best recollections are that they did not rely upon any report, but they cannot remember precisely how they did obtain the 2% figure”.
In short, the 2% figure is without empirical foundation whatsoever.
Daran,
AFAIK the 2% figure may not have been ascertained for rape in particular. However, also AFAIK it has been tested as well as can reasonably be done for other crimes, and we have no particular reason to assume that rape exhibits significantly different levels of false reporting than do other crimes.
Also, “false” in this context is a synonym for “maliciously false.” In other words, accusations made in bad faith where the accuser knows at the time of the accusation that the accusation is improper.
It is NOT a synonym for incorrect, i.e. “accusations of rape which are made in good faith but for which the behavior of the accused fails to meet the legal standards for rape.”
And you probably know this, and it is described above, but it is also NOT a synonym for not guilty, i.e. “accusations of rape which are made in good faith, and which result in a trial where the accused is acquitted.”
The court system is designed to sort things out which aren’t clear, so there will always be a significant number of accusations which are incorrect. And the court system is imperfect and biased towards the accused, so there will always be a decent number of accusation which ARE correct and which nonetheless result in acquittal. That’s not what the 2% statistic refers to.
Well, Richard, perhaps I go too far, then. I had recently been struck by the story out of Oak Forest, Ill. about a Hindu man who apparently set an apartment complex on fire with gasoline because his daughter had (in his opinion) married beneath their caste. She, her unborn child, her 1 (or 3?) year old daughter and her husband all died. I once lived a little over a mile from that apartment complex. And then there’s the stories out of Texas and other places where Moslem teenage girls have been killed by their parents for bringing them shame by wearing Western clothes or makeup or by dating someone not selected by their parents. It’s got me upset.
Has it? Can you cite?
I know that for several years in the late 90’s the FBI UCR gave a 2% unfounding rate for other violent crimes. But I don’t know if this figure was recalculated each year, or if it was just cut&pasted from report to report. Therefore I do not know how stable or representative that figure is.
Nor can I see any reason to assume that the average unfounding rate is a good proxy for the false allegation rate for these crimes.
We have no reason to assume anything about it at all. We do have reason to believe that the figure is higher than 2%. One of those reasons is that all the published research that has looked into the matter has found higher rates.
The problem here, surely is not so much what the real figure is, (no one knows), but that feminists are quote a figure of 2% as though it were established fact, when it is nothing more than a baseless myth.
I realise that the word false has these two meanings, and others, but I’m having some difficulty with your claim about the meaning the word has in the context of the 2% figure. When MRA’s quote a figure of 41%, I can find out what it means by referring to Kanin’s paper, but how to ascertain the meaning of a figure from a non-existant study raises epistemological questions that are beyond my humble brain.
She is probably seeing the first version of my post where I included that cite as well as several other studies which demonstrated the percentages of false rape allegations well above 2%. That comment was rejected, so I resubmitted it with what I considered the most important point: refuting the bad fact which is the basis for Maia’s belief that “this must be a man getting away with it because only this small percentage of rape allegations are false”.
Trust me, it’s not the only bad fact which is out there. Pretty soon you’ll be hearing about how DV increases over Superbowl weekend (debunked the year the “report” came out).
It’s easy when you stop thinking about it logically:
It means whatever the speaker wants it to mean as it can’t be challenged.
Demonspawn, I didn’t “reject” your comment from “Alas,” which is what most readers would assume from reading your comment. I said it was a digression from the intended topic for this thread — and it was, and an extremely long one, at that — and asked you to resubmit it to a thread where it would be on-topic.
The superbowl controversy — which happened over two decades ago, didn’t it? — has never been discussed on “Alas,” that I recall, so your prediction that it’ll come up on this thread any moment now seems unfounded.
My impression of you is that you’re a feminist-basher who has a sneering tone whenever he speaks to (or, more often, of) feminists, and whose style of “debate” is to recycle prefab arguments whether or not they’re directly relevant to the current discussion (as you’ve already done one on this thread, with the 20-year-old superbowl sunday crap).
If your subsequent posts prove me correct about all that, you’ll be banned pretty quickly (after which you can run off to an MRA newsgroup and whine about how the meanie feminists censored you). But if you decide to improve your behavior — including disagreeing with a tone of respect, rather than a tone of contempt — you could remain posting here for quite a while, as other dissentors have done. It’s your choice.
Demonspawn,
Take it to an open thread. If you need me to email you the text of your comment that’s currently in moderation, I will do that. You will stop hijacking this thread, however.
Just because you don’t like the discussion does not mean that it is a hijack.
[Further text deleted by Mandolin because it’s irrelevent.]
Did you miss that I’m a moderator?
Spawn meet ban. Bye.
Pingback: Feminist Critics
lol, nice one… I loved that movie.