4 Sexist Arguments that Dancers Should Drop


And by “drop” I really mean drop, stomp, put lighter fluid on, set on fire, then summon the Great Cthulhu to take them back where they belong, with the Ancient Unspoken Ones in the bottomless pits of a cursed ocean. Because these arguments are worthless bullshit.

The study of bullshit goes right back to a bad motherfucker called Aristotle, because the Ancient Greeks loved nothing more than debates, except debating about debates.

“Other pastimes include abs airbrushing; telling the Persians to go fuck themselves; playing jumbo-golf using live emissaries; long quiet walks on the beach (wading in the blood of my enemies).”

Aristotle often paused in debates and pondered: “wait a minute, what you just said is some markedly enormous, Minotaur-level pile of defecations right there”, so much so that he built the original list of thirteen fallacies (from the latin fallacia, literally meaning fancy bullshit) in his groundbreaking Athens Times bestseller De Sophisticis Elenchis. And thus, the study of bullshit was born: today, there are anywhere from 50 to 100 fallacies known to mankind, depending on how anal you are with your sub-divisions.

Today, we’re going back to Ancient Greece, enlisting in debate school and posing the following statement:

Women can be powerhouses of creativity just as likely as the next person who happens to possess a penis. They can be – and often are – the driving force in a dance couple.

Surprisingly, it’s not an observation with which everyone will agree: there’s a certain underlying separate-but-equal discourse regarding masculine and feminine roles going on in dance scenes in general that really, profoundly irks me. And it should irk you too. Because it’s, you guessed, bullshit. All those perceptions are built on one giant stinking pile of crocodile dung or another and, today, we’re going to be the disgruntled dungologists to dig through these gobs of guano.

Bullshit. Bullshit everywhere.

Bullshit. Bullshit everywhere.

Fallacy #4- The follow’s job is to follow, it says it right there!

What’s in a name? Some people think, a lot of things, apparently, but we all know it’s pure, unfiltered crap still steamy and fresh out the silverback gorilla’s buttcheeks.

"Although your first name of Charlotte has created an expressive, fun-loving nature, it has not produced the qualities necessary for a full and complete life." And how about fuck you, kabalarians.com. You don't know me. You don't know my life!

“Although your first name of Charlotte has created an expressive, fun-loving nature, it has not produced the qualities necessary for a full and complete life.” Screw you, kabalarians.com. You don’t know me. You don’t know my life!

This affirmation is as close to an equivocation fallacy as you’re gonna get without buying it a drink first. It’s the kind of play on words that unfunny people use to make unfunny jokes about unfunny things. When the world will be on the verge of a goddamn galaxy-crushing black hole, there’s still gonna be an asshole to say “Man, I’m a traditional dude: this is way too edgy for me.”

"What? You told me to pick you up at 8! HA HA HA I'M DEAD INSIDE."

“What? You told me to pick you up at 8! HA HA HA I’M DEAD INSIDE.”

There’s a truly pervasive nomenclature problem with dance roles in English, because the words “lead” and “follow” are absolutely not open to interpretation. There is one speaker and one listener and, in most dance forms but especially improvisational ones such as Lindy Hop, this simply doesn’t mirror the reality, where the follow is free to inject so much input in the dance, at some point the line between leading and following becomes blurry like a delicious, free-range, unicorn-tears-of-joy and crystalline-laughs-of-baby-angels twisted ice cream cone.

The “follow problem” is a case of words hindering and limiting the role someone can play in a dance.

That’s not true of all languages however. In French, for example, dancers use the more role-neutral “cavalier” and “cavalière”. OK, it can roughly translate to “horse riders” and gives rise to a whole other set of questions, but at least it allows you more interpretative leeway than the rigid “lead/follow” roles traditionally held as a barrier between men and women.

I wonder how prevalent was horse dancing in medieval Europe for cavalier/cavalière to actually become a thing.

How prevalent was horse dancing in medieval Europe for cavalier/cavalière to actually become a thing?

The belief that followers should always follow is often accompanied by its drooling, poo-flinging twin brother, that women should always follow, which is at least equally wrong.

FUN FACT: Notice the difference between “woman” and “follow”, because it could save your life one day. Generally speaking, we’ll go ahead and say a “woman” was born with a vagina, or if you want to really, really cover all your basis, is someone who identifies themselves as someone who has/should have a vagina, and vaginas only, and only one vagina. It may or may not be vajazzled which is absolutely great either way.

Staying politically correct in this day and age is starting to be a full-time job.

Staying politically correct in this day and age is starting to become a full-time job.

On the other hand, a “follow” could technically be either a boy or a girl – damn, it could be a T-Rex, but it better be a freaking well-behaved T-Rex. The “follow” defines whatever entity is engaging in the act of “following” in a dance. Traditionally, women follow, but some women lead and nowadays you shouldn’t mix “women” and “follows” unless you want to be called a Neanderthal and caught on the losing side of a useless debate, so just don’t do it. Whatever “following” truly means is however grounds for a totally separate, exhaustive article.

Back to women should only follow, because that’s where the goldmine is.

You’ll hear about bullshit like ” different centers of mass”. So… a short guy should follow? Where the fuck do you get off, have they even discovered fire yet where you come from?

You’ll hear about how a girl’s body is different from a guy’s and the roles are tailor-made to each gender, how basically girls should shut the fuck up and follow because the reverse is the equivalent of flipping the bird to Mother Nature, chloroforming her, prying her mouth open with used rusted dildos and taking a three-days-old Taco Bell dump right on her tonsils.

These observations are often spouted by ill-informed, insecured apemen. A lot of women lead vastly better than them. And they always will.

If you’re a jealous and insensitive asshole, it’s your problem, not theirs. Seriously, stop saying that, you sound exactly like that shady unshaven dude from the office who once claimed that white people obviously have better brains for mathematics, and now everybody sits at another table for lunch and farts on his keyboard when he’s not around.

That is, you sound exactly like a prejudiced fucking idiot.

Fallacy #3- She’s a girlshe can’t teach a leader how to lead!

This is the kind of fallacies that could be linked to various “argumentum ad” sophisms, depending on how much of a clueless dick-o-copter you are. I’d be tempted to say it’s a mix of argumentum ad naturam, whereas someone claims something is good because it’s natural (like the false morel), and the famous “appeal to tradition” (ad antiquitatem), whereas someone claims that something is good because your ancestors did it. Like human sacrifice or, really, just a lot of crazy shit our predecessors did. Seriously, take your pick: it’s a miracle we’re still alive.

"But, Doctor... - Nah! Hand washing is for chumps. people have survived for centuries without it. Now hand me that scalpel."

“But, Doctor… – Nah! Hand washing is for chumps: people have survived for centuries without it. Now hand me that scalpel and let’s transplant some heart up in this motherfucker.”

Not only can a woman be just as qualified to teach you how to lead because she most likely has vast amounts of leading knowledge that you have absolutely no fucking clue about (on the grounds that, if you say stuff like this, you’re a dumbass), but being taught by an actual follow (one who engages in the act of following, remember!) can bring a whole other dimension to your dancing that a lead will not necessarily be able to delve into as deeply. Namely, the feel and connection that follows expect, which bracket of arm tension is acceptable on the dance floor, and how to best react to a follow’s needs and expectations.

Mind you, same goes for leaders teaching followers to dance. Just reverse the nouns.

Go on, you're a big boy, you can do it!

Go on, you’re a big boy, you can do it!

But somehow, guys (mainly leaders) teaching girls how to follow has never really been a big issue, has it? Are there any other reasons besides still being collectively paranoid, as men, about how someone is going to sneak up behind us while we’re dancing and chop off our balls? Despite all these centuries of mostly non-balls-chopping?

As I touched upon before, the fact that someone enjoys the custody of a uterus or not has little to do with their technical knowledge. Hey, they might not even know how to lead very well, but nonetheless will be particularly good coaches – just as some great coaches in sports haven’t even played the game that seriously, if at all. As teachers, they might blow the best performers out of the water – teaching skills are, after all, vastly different from what makes you shine on a dance floor. I’m sure all of us have at least one example in mind when we think of that.

"Well I don't know, you just... You just do it, you know?"

“Well I don’t know man, you just… You just do it, you know?”

So take it as an even broader point: don’t judge a teacher’s ability by what you see on the dance floor. Take a class and see what you get from it. Free your mind.

"What if I told you... That you've been a douche all these years?"

“What if I told you… That you’ve been a douche all these years?”

Fallacy #2- I don’t want my follows to hijack all over the place!

This irrational allegation states that, if we give follows more space on the dance floor, soon they’ll be out of control which will logically spiral into a cataclysmic rise in the oceans level that will obliterate all forms of Doritos on Earth. It’s also known as a slippery slope claim, and is best known as the ageless en vogue trend with fucking lunatics worldwide; the little black dress to the cocktail of batshit insane, mouth-frothing debates.

Not to be mistaken with the slippery slope clam, which, while tasty and delicious, will also absorb your soul on sight.

Not to be mistaken with the slippery slope clam which, while tasty and delicious, will absorb your happy memories on sight and leave you an empty vessel of slowly rotting flesh. Sleep tight.

That’s the same type of people that are out on the steps of Congress right now shouting at the top of their lungs, advocating that if we allow governments to pass gun legislation they will soon crack down on hospitals and steal the first newborn of every couple in the country.

"Well we do need a lot of dedicated future employees to monitor all those new gun control laws."

“Well we do need a lot of dedicated future employees to monitor all those new gun control laws…”

Or those who argue against same-sex marriage by belting out from behind their Bud Light: “What next? A guy’s gonna be allowed to marry a fucking dromedary?!” Because their brain has been medically dead and silently decaying behind their sorry, saggy excuse of a face for the past decades and they can’t see the difference between a consenting, legal person with a social security number who can hold a job, own a house and sign law-binding contracts (such as, wait for it, a marriage license!) and a goddamn desert animal who doesn’t think twice about shitting on its own feet.

"What? Fuck you. Don't look at me like you've never done it."

“What? Fuck you: don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.”

Most people agree that those who employ slippery slope claims are usually terrible human beings, but somehow we have a blind spot for that when it comes to dancing.

So let me explain without losing my shit.

Just because followers take more liberties in the dance doesn’t mean that your integrity, as a leader, is in jeopardy. Quite the contrary: it just means you’ll encounter even more challenges and fun stuff to play with later on. It’s a two-way exchange in which, if you want novelty and fresh material, you have to give a bit of rope: everyone is inhabited by this urge to explore. Leaders want to try new moves. Followers want to try new variations and ways to behave that sometimes push the boundaries into Funky Town. Instead of bitching and savagely gnawing at each other’s back, we should come together and realize just exactly how wonderful this whole experience is. Embrace it as the amazing experiment that it is.

Although savagely gnawing at each other's back has its appeal.

Although savagely gnawing at each other’s back has its appeal.

Fallacy #1- She obviously got that move from *insert leader’s name here*

This could really be any other comment that sums up a woman’s work as stemming directly from some manly figure – because obviously a woman couldn’t possibly be creative or good enough to come up with a move or anything on her own, or contribute in any kind of way whatsoever to a project such as a choreography, right? If we see a pro female teaching a move, we automatically go into “where did she get that” mode. Look into your soul, do you systematically do that for guys as well? How many of you have heard, after a dinstinctly inspired spotlight in competition, someone turn around and say “OMG he’s amazing” as if the follow wasn’t even there?

That’s another example of the very popular double standard that runs rampant in society. The most overused example of those double standard biases is about sex of course, whereas a man with multiple partners is basically a king, and a girl with multiple partners is basically a whore. I mean, who should honestly give a shit in today’s world? I don’t want to be crass here, folks, but the cold hard truth is that people fuck. Big time. They fuck everywhere, and they fuck constantly. They’ve been fucking before you, and they’ll be fucking long after you’re dust.

And then they all attend those HILARIOUS pimp and ho parties.

And then they’ll all attend those HILARIOUS and not at all demeaning pimp and ho parties.

Goddamn after thousands of years of this bullshit can we get over it already?

If there’s one thing I’m fucking sick and and tired of hearing, especially in regards to teaching and even more especially dance performances, it’s how awesome this and that lead is, while largely leaving the girl in the shadows – sometimes throwing a patronizing “wow! I don’t know how she followed that!” in the mix for good measure.

"Such a gooooood girl!"

“Such a good girl!”

Because we see the result of the work in a dance routine as primarily the guy leading and the girl following, we sometimes forget that the entirety of the piece was created and performed by two individuals. We tend to hail the man as the creative genius behind this move, that transition, this new insane aerial because physically that’s what seems to happen before our astonished eyes. But deep down, you know it’s just lazy bullshit that our brain makes up because it’s familiar with the story. A story that goes hand in hand with thousands of years of brainwashing.

And, you know what, this is getting fucking old.

I think it’s time top leaders not only realize this but start giving active props to their female partners – or keep doing so if they’re already doing it, as I know very well some are. This is a case where just passively not mentioning anything about it is not enough: sometimes, you have to make efforts to break a narrative you find is unjust.

A lesson learned in this 1989 documentary.

A lesson learned in this 1989 documentary.

As for myself, I’m glad to say I was very privileged to work with some of the most talented swing dancers of this generation: Carla Heiney, Maryse Lebeau, Annie Trudeau, Geneviève St-Laurent, Nadine Gagnon, Vanessa Granjon, Lunou Samson-Poirot, not to mention the countless times I’ve worked on one or two isolated occasions with someone… Some of those names you might recognize more than others, but that’s not really the point: I’m very comfortable with stating that at least 50% of the work I’ve done with these wonderful followers came from them – and not only minor input like arms styling but whole sections of choreography, concepts, steps variations. I’m 100% certain that all the good performers and dancers out there have been tremendously influenced by strings of strong and talented women.

Whether they acknowledge it or not.

So, leaders, stop and ask your partner what they think about such and such move, or how it could be lead better; thank them for a dance, even if it’s the thousandth time; congratulate them profusely and publicly when you feel in your heart she’s done something awesome. Recognize the place they already occupy. Don’t gloss over it, thinking it’s obvious – as I’ve done many times – : as we’ve seen, to a lot of people, it’s not obvious at all.

And fucking stop grabbing them by the elbow while they’re talking to someone because “hey c’m’ere! I want to try something!” Seriously? This fucking sucks. Show some respect.

Whatever your gender, don’t be shy to stand up and say “fuck you” to the nay-sayers, or any variation you find is more polite if you happen to be Canadian, or some sort of other equally reprehensible offense.

"I would invite you to revise your malformed opinion, but it seems your cerebral axons are in as bad a shape as Quebec roads, eh?"

“I would invite you to revise your malformed opinion, but it seems your cerebral axons are in as bad a shape as Quebec roads, eh?”

Refer to this article if need be: I’ll take the heat, loud and proud.

But that’s exclusively because I’m hidden behind the relative anonymity of the Internet.

If you need me to step up to a fight in real life, you’re shit out of luck, because I can only mostly throw Charleston kicks.

_______________________

While not punching misogynistic sophists in their metaphorical nuts, Zack can be found at Swing ConneXion.

_______________________

<< Previous Post     Next Post >>

Other articles for your reading pleasure:

The Ten Commandments of the Dance Floor 5 Realizations You Need To Make About Dance Teachers

6 Well Known Diseases That Are Plaguing Today’s Dancers

About Zack

The Jazz Monkey View all posts by Zack

19 responses to “4 Sexist Arguments that Dancers Should Drop

  • The Sharks Among Us | The Jazz Monkey

    […] authority. We traditionally have enjoyed a superior status – something that the Jazz Monkey has addressed before. The instructors’ cult and particularly the male instructors’ cult is an obvious […]

  • Anders

    while there is a point here… i hate the suggestion that ‘just following’ (i.e. following a lead very very closely and with attention to nuance) is demeaning/taking a subservient role….

    its really really hard (I would argue just as active as leading)

    plus it can also lead to awesome dances

    Its great to have dances that take cues from both partners/swap roles etc …. BUT its also totally valid and cool to ‘just follow’ (though i’m not sure that the ‘just’ is in any way an appropriate description). What we as a dance scene really need to do is telling others how they SHOULD be having fun, and getting up on our high horse when others enjoy dancing in ways that don’t match our preconceptions. I would much rather be in a dance scene were a variety of approaches are valid and accepted, and people opinions are listened to and respected.

    • Zack

      I was under the impression that this article pretty much advocates the “people can do whatever they want, shut up” aspect. And an awful lot of people out there are telling an awful lot of women what they can and can’t do on the dance floor. I don’t make the argument that pure “following” is inherently bad. Nor is it inherently good. But the belief that “follows” should always “follow” 100% just needs to go. The overall problem this article is (trying to be) addressing is precisely that people hold preconceptions about gender roles that they have no tangible right of holding. Sure, they can hold any belief they choose for themselves, but when they start telling other people what they should do, and start shaming the people who don’t hold the same belief, then it’s a problem.

      And juste a precision, just because something is “really, really hard”, doesn’t mean it’s not demeaning or subservient. So that’s not really an argument. I’m not making the statement that following is or isn’t “subservient”, I’m just saying that your logic has to get looked at.

      • Anders

        ‘And juste a precision, just because something is “really, really hard”, doesn’t mean its not demeaning or subservient’

        While we are pedantically picking each other up I would like to note that you selectively quoted me by missing out the following clause ‘I would argue just as active as leading’. This clause was pretty important as it directly related to my contention that just following is not passive.

        If you are going to try pick up people on the logical flow of their arguments: try harder.

      • Zack

        Add active to that then. “Just because something is hard and active doesn’t make it not demeaning or subservient”… Still no link between the two affirmations.

        And once again, the article doesn’t make the argument that following is or isn’t subservient or passive. What IS true is that pure following is reactive, which may be confused easily with active.

        Besides, my contention with the whole article was to make people realize there was just to following than “just following”… Not that “just following” was inherently bad. It’s interesting how some people interpreted it very defensively as a direct attack on the act of “just following”.

  • Ruminative

    With all due respect, this sounds like making a controversy where there’s barely one.

    • Zack

      First of all, I’m glad you haven’t experienced any of those. No sarcasm, I am. You must live in a wonderful universe. I, for one, have experienced them, many times, and pretty much all of the girls I’ve talked with and danced with over the years have experienced it in one form or another. So you can write all you want about how gender issues are not a problem, you’re just being blissfully ignorant. There’s a difference.

      The goal was not to be controversial but, as usual, to get real.

      • Ruminative

        “Pretty much all of the girls I’ve talked with and danced with over the years have experienced it in one form or another” Do not believe you for a second. Neither do I believe that your goal is not to be controversial. Hyperbole, contrivance and controversy are clearly your preferred tactics. That’s fine. They have served others well.

      • Zack

        I don’t really give a rat’s ass whether you “believe it” or not. It’s been my experience and the experience of many others. What is YOUR experience that allows you to pass such a sweeping judgement is what interests me. And, most importantly, what is your take on the issue – not what is your take on someone else’s take on the issue.

        The main goal of the hyperboles and this whole website is to be funny, and admittedly I might miss the mark from time to time. If and when I address controversial issues it’s because I find they’re often the most interesting and rich in content. I like to write about interesting stuff.

        And most importantly I don’t hide behind an alias to do so.

  • lizardqueen

    I see you like logical fallacies…

    Fallacy #5 – Straw Man Charleston

    Argumentative technique used in Lindy Hop Blogs in which the author distorts or fabricates the position of an antagonist and misrepresents said position as common or pervasive. The blogger proceeds to refute and deconstruct this exaggerated position in a whimsical and status-seeking manner. The result is generally a trivial conclusion based on a false premise, which is of little value to the dance community, but results in self-empowerment among fellow bloggers. Such arguments have recently begun to replace real world experiences and practical logic.

    See also: Lindy Circular Logic, Cherry Picking Cherries, and False Off The Log Analogy

    • Zack

      If I understand correctly, you dismiss this article as an example of the “Straw Man Charleston” (forgive the defensiveness if that’s not what you meant. Your comment is unclear).

      That’s a valid position, against which I can only oppose the fact that I’ve heard the very arguments being held in this article, numerous times, over the course of the past, oh… fifteen years or so. More than enough to form an opinion. So it’s not all in my head or exaggerated – I’ve even been one of those assholes at one point or another.

      I’ll add that the straw man fallacy, classically, is NOT the fabrication of an argument, but rather a misrepresentation of one’s argument. For example, if person A said “I’m for abortion”, person B would retort “so you advocate baby murder”, etc…

      Which admittedly doesn’t get anyone anywhere.

  • Rebecca P.

    Best. Love this, love the philosophy breakdown, love the reality check. Thanks from the bottom of my now less insecure follower’s heart.

  • iLogos (@iLogos)

    I think there are two things here that the statements themselves are true and not myths, but a lot of the baggage that goes with one, or completely misunderstanding what the role is within the developing culture in the other is what causes problems.

    Fallacy #4
    A Follower *SHOULD* follow, and it is is in the name. But what precisely is included within that role? Let’s define what is in the leader’s role first. The leader’s job is to create and direct momentum and watch the dance space and be responsible for directing the couple around any obstacles. Now what is the follower’s role? The follower’s job is to receive the momentum and transform it, and watch the dance space and be responsible for preventing each individual in the partnership from colliding with any obstacles.

    That is it.

    Each of them is responsible for the artistic side as long as it does not interfere with the requirements of their role.

    Culturally speaking, women in the 20’s through the 50’s were the ones in-charge in black households. This is still true in many black families. My father until he retired turned his paycheck over to my mother because she did most of the shopping and bill paying. The labor in the family was divided equally, but the jobs they each had was different. Simply because the follower’s job does not include directing the partnership does not make it lesser. Because the follower’s job is about accepting and transforming the momentum does not make it greater.

    Fallacy #2
    I don’t want a follower hijacking all the time. Truth be told I don’t ever want a follower to hijack. Hijacking is a clear break from their role as established above, just as my not generating and transferring momentum is a clear break from my role. They can indicate that they would like more space, time, leveraged tension, compression, energy, etc. and being a responsive and good leader I should honor those requests and give them what they want as long as it does not violate my role (specifically directing the couple around obstacles on the dance floor).

    Of course there is SOOO much that is not specifically contradictory against either person’s role that gets assumed, like styling and improvisation, artistic decisions and the like. It is these assumptions of what is part of a role that cause issues. We can even swap roles, for a couple of counts or for measures, but we must both agree to keep the dance smooth and fun.

    Here is a promise to my followers, I won’t try to body roll you if you don’t try to *force* a different move in place of the one I’m leading. If I would like a specific type of musical interpretation I will try and inspire it and if you want a specific move or change in our partner dynamic, communicate it to me and we can create it together.

    It isn’t a case of separate but equal, but a team each working together to achieve the same goal. A division of labor prevents duplication of effort and conflicts. Where the roles “blur” and vanish is when the levels of communication are so high that the flow between partners becomes intuitive and if the roles of leader/follower swap it does so without pause and without conflict.

    • Zack

      Well these are not myths, per say, just dumb arguments. A myth would be “Woman, leading is going to hurt your following, so you should stop trying to lead right now.” But downright myths about dancing would be a good article!

      I agree with you, kinda, on #2. This article is not an apology of highjacking, it makes me want to cut my own head off with a chainsaw. But shaping momentum and highjacking are two very different things, and I think you might be in danger of confusing the two. Some of the most versed followers will take a move in directions you wouldn’t believe, and some would call that highjacking but, to me, highjacking is… you know, just doing what they want regardless of their partner. Which is rude. But I was saying that the people who used this argument were usually not victims of highjacking itself, but victims of the slippery slope delusion that follows having an input in the dance would inevitably lead to highjacking. Sorry it wasn’t clear.

      As far as #4 goes, it’s the same thing, pretty much. A lot of people who actually say that really mean that follows should exclusively work within the frame that the guy *expects* – which let’s face it is fuck-impossible. And I truly tried to present it in that context.

      **I edited this comment because even though at first glance I sort of agreed, I found out in the end I didn’t as much as I thought.

    • Rebecca Brightly

      Reality check! Follows can do whatever the hell they like. Their role is whatever THEY want it to be, not what YOU think it should be. That is what “equal” means. If you don’t enjoy it, you can dance with more submissive partners.

      • Ruminative

        Reality check – People enjoy dancing with each other. Or they don’t. Injecting gender politics where it is hardly a major issue makes for great blogosphere debate but also makes dancing more complicated than it needs to be.

      • Zack

        Don’t dismiss other people’s observations because YOU don’t see a problem with it – I doubt you are qualified enough (whatever that would be) to make the sweeping declaration that it’s “hardly a major issue”. That’s just really pricky.

  • Harry

    Quote of the year “. . . but it better be a freaking well-behaved T-Rex.” ;o)
    Best example of fallacy 2 José Mourhino – greatest coach on the planet – below average player.
    “For every leader who thinks he can lead, there’s an exponentially growing number of followers who will know that he can’t.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: