Notable Quotable:

Notable Quotable:

Remember, folks: whenever a woman says "die for me because you are a man," just look her in the eye and say "my body, my choice."

Friday, January 25, 2013

Feminism Needs Domestic Violence

...Therefore Feminism perpetuates domestic violence. Feminism also invents fake domestic violence. This gives Feminism an excuse to exist.

It has been many years since feminists have fought for anything remotely resembling equality between the sexes.  I know most ordinary feminists still think equality is the name of the game, but they are mistaken.  All anyone has to do in order to see this, is look at what feminist policy makers, movers and shakers, and intellectual leaders (and I use that term rather loosely) have actually accomplished during the last two or three decades.  No equality there.  None.

This article is a very basic introduction to a single concept that most people will instantly reject on a visceral level:  That feminist policies breed Domestic Violence while pretending to prevent it.  I'm not going to quote lots of statistics and studies, or variables and technicalities.  I will however, state that the Duluth Model* of domestic violence, on which virtually all DV policy and "education" is based, has been thoroughly debunked - it represents as common, the very least common type of Intimate Partner Violence (brutal male/innocent female.)**  I am highlighting a causal relationship between feminist policy and Domestic Violence.  To see this principle in action, go to any courthouse and sit through a day or two of Family Court.  And while you're there, remember that the feminist-sponsored Violence Against Women  Act pays for the "advocates" who coach women on how to present their cases, while the men are advised by their lawyers to "plead to a lesser charge."  Remember that VAWA pays the cost of housing the men in jail while they await their hearings.  VAWA also pays toward the costs of prosecuting cases of "violence against women."  Everybody in that courtroom, except the accused male, has income (and power) to gain by painting him as a monster.  In theory they could railroad women in the same way because technically, abuse by women is still illegal, but it's a lot easier to convince the public that hundreds of men in any given community are abusers, as opposed to hundreds of women.  We notice when women are accused of crimes.  Men, on the other hand, well, men are pigs, right?  Abuse is what we've been trained to expect from them.

80% of all victims of violence are men, yet we have the Violence Against Women Act, ostensibly to protect women from (primarily domestic/relationship) violence.  How did this happen?   Why is violence against women presumed to be worse than violence against men?  Because women are weak and vulnerable?  Because nobody takes women seriously?  Whatever the appeal, it worked; even though violence against women was already illegal, the thought of violence committed against the "helpless," offends us so deeply that we decided it was perfectly reasonable to spare no expense and overlook no preventive measure, if it would reduce the number of victims.  Random violence is relatively rare and tough to manage, but domestic violence is so, well, curable, right?  Who doesn't want to stop Domestic Violence?

Professional feminists, that's who.  Without DV victims, feminists would have no rallying cry, and they would lose political power.  Here's how it works:

Thanks primarily to the Violence Against Women Act, DV has become a multi-billion dollar industry.  This industry employs many thousands of people throughout the nation, paying them with federal VAWA grant money.  And those thousands of people have made relatively little headway in achieving their "goal" of reducing DV.  Indeed they perpetuate it.  This is by design; if DV went away, so would their jobs.  There are many many factors involved in DV, and it's no coincidence that feminist policies aggravate nearly all of them, but for the sake of clarity I'm going to address only a simplified but significant few of them here.

Who commits a substantial proportion of DV?  Past victims or witnesses of DV.  Who committed the DV that they experienced or witnessed?  In too many cases to count, it is women.  Women commit far more than half of all DV.  Among the vast majority of violent couples, the violence is mutual.  Additionally, women commit the majority of child abuse.    Yes, women are responsible for MOST DV.  Next point, what often triggers DV?  Stress.  What causes women lots of stress?  The constant obligations of childrearing.  What causes even more childrearing stress?  Not having a father in the family.  How are so many fathers removed from their families?  They are accused of Domestic Violence, whether it happened or not, and whether it's mutual or not.  Disagreements are exaggerated, violence is "invented" or men are blamed for any real violence that does occur.  The result is that fathers, often the most stable influence in the family, are kicked to the curb and financially bled dry, while mothers are protected and are excused for their "missteps;" this is the unstable - and all too often abusive - environment in which their children are raised.  Toss in a few more variables like substance abuse, a string of violent boyfriends, and a bit of poverty, and this process is guaranteed to produce future domestic abusers.  And this is the process that VAWA has institutionalized.  It no longer happens "once in a while;" it is SOP.  Was this the intent of VAWA?  Who cares?  This is the result.

Thanks to VAWA, once a father is accused of DV, his chances of keeping his family (or his assets, his reputation, his friends, often even his job) are almost nil.  Conversely, most mothers have to commit "front page news" crimes to lose custody of their children.  VAWA provides billions of dollars for programs that "protect women from their abusers."  Yet it provides virtually nothing to help men or children escape their abusers, if those abusers are women.  VAWA addresses less that half of the DV it encounters.  Instead of working to reduce Domestic Violence, VAWA works to ensure that millions of children will continue to suffer abuse, and will likely grow up to become abusers themselves.

I am currently reading Erin Pizzey's (Editor at Large, AVfM) memoir, "This Way to the Revolution" (see sidebar.)  Forty years ago, long before VAWA, she founded the first battered women's shelter in the UK, and she immediately discovered that many of her "victims" were at least as violent as their "abusers."  She was harassed, threatened and demonized by powerful feminists for saying so out loud.  For decades. This understanding of Domestic Violence is not new.  However sharing this knowledge with the general population, could completely obliterate feminist control of the family courts.
And it should.

Question: Why on earth would anyone try to suppress the undeniable fact that "we're doing it wrong?"  Answer: A lot of women's careers depend on "doing it wrong.".  These women have no qualms about throwing children, men, and other women under the bus to keep their jobs.  Feminism doesn't care about children (VAWA doesn't even count them as victims.)  It doesn't care about families (broken families are its bread and butter.)  It doesn't care about women's safety (resources wasted on imagined abuse, are channeled away from victims of real abuse.)  Feminism cares about controlling, dominating and destroying the men who pay Feminism's bills.  Everything else is window dressing.  Don't believe me?  Follow the  money.  Oh, but you can't; there doesn't seem to be a paper trail, no readily available accounting of how and where VAWA money is distributed.  One might think some people are conspiring to keep the rest of us in the dark...


  1. But the idea of strict gender roles was around long before feminism. And it's because of those strict gender roles that men aren't granted custody. It bothers me too, because in many cases the father *is* a better caregiver, and the custody of children should go to the person who will care for the children better...not care as in financial, care as in genuinely care for them.

    But somehow the world has been tricked into thinking this idea, that women are only allowed to be homemakers. That women are moms, first and foremost. You've said yourself that a woman working is detrimental to the family, that she needs to stay home and raise her children. So people toss everything they've been told about women into a blender and give the mom her children back because they're told so much that a father's role is to provide for children, while a mother's is to care for them, and regardless of what the children want, those roles are firmly ingrained in people's minds. But feminism didn't create those roles, that of the father who works to provide shelter and food, and the mother who stays at home and nutures. And until those roles are seen as options for both men and women, rather than assignments, that idea will stay in people's heads until they actively fight to ignore it. I mentioned before that I know a man whose wife is a witch and abusing the system to get money from him and the state for the child that she sent to him and his wife months ago. I'd prefer that he had been granted custody. The girls would've preferred it-she didn't allow him to visit them for years. But because there's a picture in people's minds of a woman who cooks and cleans and nurtures, and a man who works and provides, their mother got custody. It's not until we get rid of the picture in everyone's minds that women are passive and sweet (what are girls made of? Sugar and spice and everything nice! Boys? Snakes and snails and puppy dog tails. Cute with a hint of creepy) that this problem will stop happening. Some people will always be abusers. There are always some people who are just bad people. We can't fix it by insisting that women become more passive, because all that encourages is for that woman to put up a front, and for more courts to award custody to a sweet, kind woman who loves her children, when she doesn't and isn't. If we actively encourage the view of men as nurturing, or the idea of the stay-at-home dad, allow those women who want jobs and lives outside of the home, then perhaps a judge will consider actually judging the couple based on who they are, rather than what's in their pants.

    Vaguely related: my childishness wonders who would get custody in a lesbian relationship. Or a gay one. That would be the ultimate of what you're looking for, really. A couple that is seen as equal, which forces the judge to award custody based on the people involves rather than based on sex.

    Even less related: Just popping in for a couple seconds to look around and comment. Still really busy so if I don't reply or if it takes me forever, that's why. But my classes are so awesome, I've got a Stats class that I think you'd like, it's basically an entire course built around "don't trust statistics. also, here's how to manipulate a statistic to make it say whatever you want"
    Plus we get to learn about the validity (or lack thereof) of field sobriety tests, and we get to play with the drunk goggles! I can fail one of those tests dead sober thanks to my issues, so I fully expect that with the goggles on I will not be able to stand up.

    1. Perfect timing Jessica! GWW posted this yesterday:

      It's over 45 minutes loooooong, so give yourself time. Bookmark it an listen to it later.

      Re: gay couples, a lot of MRAs are pro-marriage equality, and that is one of the reasons. The issues will highlight the hypocrisy of family courts.

      "You've said yourself that a woman working is detrimental to the family, that she needs to stay home and raise her children."
      Whoa, back up there. I said SOMEONE needs to stay home and raise the children they CHOSE OT HAVE, and yes it is almost always more practical that it be the mother. Men make more money because women are less competitive and professionally driven (women deeply committed to their careers either don't have children, marry SAH dad types, or plan from the get-go to have someone else raise their kids for them.) Homemaking is simply better suited than moneymaking, to MOST women inborn personality traits. She has an obligation to contribute to the family in the most effective way she can. (If she chooses not to marry and have a family, her only obligation is to herself.)
      Default custody, btw, used to go to fathers, because fathers are the only ones who had the legal obligation to provide for them. (Lots more on that in the video.)

      Judges will rule according to people's character and parental qualifications, as soon as judges' jobs no longer depend on them ruling in favor of women. But not before.

    2. And judges' jobs will no longer depend on them ruling in favor of women when we begin to allow men to be weak and women to be strong, as well as vice versa. DV towards males is covered up because men are tough and nobody believes that they're being abused, or that they can't protect their children. It's easier to believe that someone can perpetrate DV when they're physically strong, because...well, look at the Hulk. There's a long tradition in our culture that physical strength equals insanity, emotional outbursts of violence, that sort of thing. Go look at wrestling, check out the screaming and the over-the-top anger. Sure, we hear about women who are abusive, but it's brushed off because women are weak. It's a mental connotation of a little girl swinging her fists while the guy presses a finger to her forehead and holds her back, bored. If we look at humans as being along spectrums of strength...physical strength, emotional strength, etc...that means that women have the potential to be strong, or to be cruel, or something that's more spice than sugar. And men have the potential to be passive, or weak, or taking the violence to protect their children. That evil-man-abusing-helpless-woman stereotype is because that fits into our perceptions of gender. Women are sweet and innocent. Men are clever (that man brain) and strong. So the concept of "innocent helpless woman" plays into a culture full of blond jokes (men can be blond too, but I've never heard a blond joke about a man...there's the stereotype of the ditzy blond woman) and sugar and spice and everything nice...there is a heavy emphasis on girls to be good and nice (which plays into why a woman, if she realizes she has a problem, will not seek therapy or confide in anyone). And the concept of "evil man" plays into our culture's ideas about strength and toughness, and how we view women as the weaker sex, the lesser sex, and how men are more intelligent...that a woman might stay in an abusive relationship but a man wouldn't, so if a man is staying, it must not be abuse. After all, he probably has a job or can get one fairly easily, so he doesn't depend on the spouse's income. And there's an emphasis on not crying, not complaining about anything, so a man who says that he's being abused is seen as weak or lesser (that is, he's being viewed as feminine). A woman abusing a man is a laughable concept to many, because of how we assume men and women to be. If we take those assumptions and turn them into options...they *can* be this way but don't have to be...then that could change and we'll see the DV that happens to men more clearly. A woman abusing a child is seen as a laughable concept because we see little girls with baby dolls, the motherly instinct, all the BS where women are just the ultimate in caregiving and a mother could never abuse her own child. We see women as mothers, not as people, and mother equals all of that cultural baggage I mentioned with helpless female, plus more. It's why people are so outraged that anyone female would not want children. I told people when I was young that I was never going to have my own kids, and they chuckled and said I'd change my mind. I have friends whose parents are asking about babies. There is a lot of pressure on women to be mothers and motherly. A woman who doesn't like kids or is overwhelmed by her child? Perish the thought!

      Sorry about the misinterpretation there! It's been a while since I've been here and I got mixed up.

    3. That is exactly the mindset, and it is partly instinctive. Without feminist social engineering restricting men's power, and encouraging women's displays of half-assed (and egomaniacal) power, society would police itself as it once did.

      A hundred years ago men were perceived to be strong (because they were) but masculinity was not perceived to be dangerous - it was considered a virtue, and respected, warts and all. Not anymore. Masculinity must now be reined in and channeled "appropriately - according to feminist preferences.

      Also, anyone with more power than they can handle, tends to go a little bonkers and make stupid decisions, BECAUSE THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. This is one of the "gifts" feminism has given women - too much power. If it gave them the right amount of power they would use it productively, but they don't. They do whatever they can get away with, which is a whole lot, now that men's hands are tied behind their backs. Feminism has turned Western women into spoiled children in a candy store. They take whatever they want, and someone else pays the bill.

    4. But the problem is, we don't live in that society anymore. Our world is changing and will continue to change, because everything does. The only things that don't change are the ones that are dead. There are cultures that get along very well with this primitive society model that you like. But those aren't us. We are a developed nation, and with that comes laws and rules and recognition of which people have traditionally held a lower status, and we attempt to make that right because we DO have the resources to do that. The reason undeveloped and developing cultures have the early society model that you often refer to is because they have no choice. We're already at this point. The solution here isn't to look at what we've got and say that we need to go backwards in time and development. The solution is to find ways to move forward. You said that men are raped (I kept trying to find this post. It's by an amazing feminist sex-positive sex ed group, they've had various posts about Project Unbreakable before, but I loved that they gave attention to an issue like this:, that women are abusive, and the like. But the thing is, PEOPLE CAN BE BAD NO MATTER WHAT. Going back to an earlier society model will not cure our problems. It might wear women out more so that they're too exhausted to hit their child with much force, but it won't turn them into wonderful happy people who don't hit at all. An abusive person is still going to be abusive whether the other parent is around or not. There are wonderful, beautiful, amazing men and women out there. There are wonderful, beautiful, amazing feminists and MRAs out there. And there are horrible, cruel, evil feminists and MRAs and men and women and whatever out there.

      So we move forward. MRAs look around, shrug their shoulders, and go "hey, look. We're not saying that women aren't abused, but men are abused too. Men need help too. Can we just look at some facts, and make some changes here?" Feminists go "Awesome! You're allowed to ask for help, you know. We honestly don't mind!! One of our big problems with the idea of gender roles is that it keeps you from asking for help, and it keeps people from taking you seriously when you do, so this is really what we've been wanting this whole time."

      VAWA is no longer a concern, because now that it's recognized that men and women are *both* abused, we have protections in place for *everyone*. Children and child support go to the parent who will honestly care for their child better, rather than defaulting to one or the other based on what's between their legs, because we've finally gotten beyond the idea of men being incapable of dealing with children or women being automatically better for the child.

    5. You're saying that feminism turned women into children in a candy store, because they've been given more power than they can handle.
      What would happen if I had come to college as a young woman whose parents had forbidden me all sweets, growing up? I had maybe a slice of cake, a few times, at a birthday party, but I was told that too much sugar would make me hyper and I'd lose control. All I got was just enough to realize how much I wanted it. Then, someone basically handed me a pass to freedom, and I'm supposed to control myself now? I've never had the chance to learn self-control because I was never given the opportunity. Of course men have learned self-control in terms of power. They've had the power all their lives. ANYONE who is forbidden ANYTHING for a long time will go a little wild when they first get access to it, they're testing what they can do. Eventually, they find their limits and settle down comfortably. We're still in the rebellion phase. We would be past it by now, but the more we push, the more everyone pushes back *coughbirthcontrolaccesscough* and it's like I'm at school and my mom keeps coming up to visit and scolding me and fixing my diet. If I don't have a chance to find my own limits, I'll never be able to settle down at a reasonable limit.

    6. "Feminists go "Awesome! You're allowed to ask for help, you know. We honestly don't mind!!"

      Who doesn't mind? Nice decent "feminists?" Powerless but compassionate people like you? Men DO ask for help, but they don't get help because men's issues are not funded. Anywhere. And feminists leaders ACTIVELY work to keep it that way.

      Here's why: If men are no longer considered to be Evil Patriarchs Who Oppress Women, there would be no reason for VAWA, there would be no reason for Women's Studies (except as a quaint elective.) There would be no reason for the government to spend trillions of dollars showing the world hoe awful men are. Powerful feminists have NO INTENTION of losing control of that money, without a fight.

  2. "VAWA is no longer a concern, because now that it's recognized that men and women are *both* abused, we have protections in place for *everyone*. Children and child support go to the parent who will honestly care for their child better, rather than defaulting to one or the other based on what's between their legs, because we've finally gotten beyond the idea of men being incapable of dealing with children or women being automatically better for the child."

    That is simply not true. There is not one single country, state, province, county or town in western civilization, where this is the norm. NOT ONE.

    1. No, of course it's not the norm. That was me describing a future reality, not reality as it is right now. The overly strict gender roles go away, and these things happen. You mentioned upthread that a lesbian or gay couple, where that gender bias isn't present, would be an ideal situation. So...the ideal situation, as I'm interpreting, is one where we treat both members as equal or as close as can possibly be. The paragraph you're quoting is right after where I was putting out a hypothetical of the chain of events once we start getting rid of the prescriptive gender roles and let it be a spectrum of roles.

    2. If we treat bot sexes equally *legally,* individuals of both sexes would be able to choose their own roles with only *cultural* outside pressure. Any person who doesn't like his or her cultural environment, can find a more welcoming "community."

      Feminism enforces legal standard which make this impossible.

    3. Feminist policies FORCE men to be protectors of and providers for women, whether the men have the resources to do so or not, and whether the women can protect and provide for themselves or not.

    4. In your second post, I'm not seeing that, can you explain further? As I mentioned downthread, I don't believe that those policies are feminist, because feminism is not simply about protecting girls, it's about letting girls protect themselves. There are shirts you can buy that say "This Princess Rescues Herself" or something to that effect. That is feminist.

      Also, the reason why I don't like the policy of putting the blame on a woman for her rape.

      And yes, I feel the same way about guys getting raped, whether by men or women. Blaming someone for their own rape shames the rapist more than it shames the victim, because it says that the rapist was weak that they depend on others to keep them from raping. That their base state is rapist and it's up to everyone else to not give them the chance. We see all the time where a woman's rapist wasn't convicted because of how the woman was dressed. In our earlier debate, you mentioned that life does pretty much suck for guys, that every woman they pass sees them as a potential rapist, etc. The reason women see all guys as potential rapists is because when they see that a woman was blamed for her own rape, what they're essentially doing is letting the rapist off the hook. It's not his fault, she was provoking him, and he couldn't control himself. Victim-blamers are teaching women to see men as potential rapists. So the guys who have a spine, who want to have sex with a woman who's genuinely interested in them, get the rough end of the deal because of the guys who use "but she was wearing a mini-skirt and she was drunk!" as an excuse.
      Also, in your original Letter, you said that if two people go to bed drunk and wake up and both regret it, only one is a rapist. There's a lot of cultural stuff mixed up in that (the misconception that men are grateful for any sex and can't really regret it), but the end result is that if neither one is actually able to consent to sex, then legally and morally speaking, they raped each other. Both of them went to bed with someone to drunk to consent. That's pretty much the definition. When the stereotype of sex-crazed male goes away, there'll be rape convictions for women, too.

    5. " you said that if two people go to bed drunk and wake up and both regret it, only one is a rapist."

      That's not morality or culture, that is a legal definition of rape. And it's inexcusable.

      "Also, the reason why I don't like the policy of putting the blame on a woman for her rape."

      There is no such "policy."

      The fact that you think there is, is further proof that you have accepted the feminist "interpretation" of common sense. There is a HUGE difference between teaching women how to reduce risk to their safety (princess rescues herself) and telling women they caused their own rapes. Feminists don't want you to see the difference; feminist policymakers need for you to believe that all women are helpless (incapable of rescuing themselves) in the face of Teh Big Bad Menz. The truth is this: a small minority of men (and women) are sociopathic predators, and they mix unnoticed among moral people. Fortunately, predators don't always get what they want, because potential victims have the POWER to PREVENT *most* of the harm that would otherwise befall them. Unless said potential victims CHOOSE to give up that power. Anyone who doesn't understand that concept can learn it the hard way by putting on some expensive clothes and jewelry, and taking a solitary stroll through any slum on the planet, at 2:00 a.m.

      Feminists project their own fake, over-dramatic "fear of men" onto anyone who says women should take responsibility for their own safety. "Oh but you caaaan't prevent aaaall rapes, because men are evil and determined!" Yet they know full well that only the smallest handful of men are actually evil and determined; but they get attention and sympathy by inflating a legitimate concern into a paralyzing fear. One of the methods of inflating that fear is to say that victims won't report rape if they think they'll be blamed for it. For the vast majority of victims, this is utter bullshit.

      There was a time in our history when men who abused women were routinely beaten bloody and/or literally run out of town BY THEIR MALE PEERS. Actually this is still happening, but in many cases, the accusations are false, made by women who don't want to admit they were consenting or cheating.

  3. "I've never had the chance to learn self-control because I was never given the opportunity."

    The reason you had "no opportunity" to learn self control during the first 18 years of you life, is that you have been protected from the logical (and very educational) consequences of your actions. Thanks in part to feminism (and in part to White Knight pedistalization) girls are protected from consequences far more than boys. Girls never learn that the price for controlling their impulses, can be very high and very permanent. Do you think these girls had any idea that they would be internationally shamed for their very own words and actions?

    1. I'm sorry, I just don't see how feminism is responsible for that enforcement of gender roles. That's not protecting me from the consequences, it's protecting me from the actions. I didn't binge on candy and then get petted and coddled and given pepto-bismol or's that someone decided I wasn't tough enough to be allowed to make my own decisions. I must be protected from myself. But guys don't have to be protected from themselves, because they're tough and strong, and they can handle it. We return to that same problem. Girls are weak or stupid or at best foolish and misguided. Boys, on the other hand, are tough enough to do what they want.

      You look at the policy-makers who refer to themselves as feminists and extrapolate from that. I read books written by feminists, with characters who are pretty much the epitome of feminism, and extrapolate from that. I consider my version to be a lot better actual measure of what feminism is as an idea than what policies are made. If we judge by policies, we'd better just dismantle the government because we've got two political parties that swap back and forth, and neither one has had a real great track record. I consider myself a Democrat for the same reason I consider myself a feminist. The ideals that the word represents, to me, are the same ones that I have already. But if I judge solely by what Democrats have done...well, heck, we're screwed and I'm firmly on the side of evil.

      Sheroes was created by Tamora Pierce and Meg Cabot. Tammy is probably up there in my favorite authors. She's got a bunch of tough, strong female characters. I like her Circle of Magic books best, though, because those ones, the characters have friends and companions and people who support them. Her other books, the characters act pretty much on their own and as a wimp, I can't relate to them very well. Regardless, all of her characters are awesome. And all the books end happily. But Trickster's Choice, the main character gets angry at her mom or whatever, runs away from home. She's gonna go be all tough, etc. Gets kidnapped by slavers and sold in a foreign country. Her mother has a series too, her name's Alanna. She really wants to be a knight, her twin brother really wants to be a mage, so they swap. She becomes an awesome knight. Her brother gets corrupted and dies. Which wouldn't've happened if she hadn't bullied him into switching with her. Heck, ever seen Matilda? Most people consider that to be a feminist movie. A little girl who's bullied by just about everyone, who finds a way out of it due to her cleverness, rather than by having some guy swoop in and save her. That movie is all about consequences. Cartoonishly overdone, yes, but they're there. Consequences for everything, and the only Deus ex Machina is the little girl herself. That is freaking revolutionary.

      Related: I stole a candy bar from a Walmart when I was about seven. My parents caught me. The candy bar went in the freezer when we got home, and I went to my room, emptied my piggy bank, went back to the store, my mom had them call a CSM and made me pay for it with my pennies. I bawled my eyes out but I've never stolen a thing since. And no, that's not just a times thing, I saw a woman walking along with a magazine and her little girl when I was at Walmart over my Christmas break, and my mom and I both heard them page the CSM up to the front counter.

  4. *for NOT controlling their impulses*

    1. Meh, I knew what you meant. I'm working on growing out of my grammar freak days. Now, spelling? That still bugs me. I'm a spelling nerd and I have the trophies to prove it. But you wanna talk about consequences? Apparently, if you kindly point out what people do wrong, they get really whiny and pissed off and won't be your friend. That was also partly due to my brother, and my getting to leave class for gifted and talented every day, and my freakishly unchildish adoration of books...but the grammar stuff didn't help. I moved from the town where I was raised and I started working on loosening up. It wasn't in time to be a normal person at high school (though the other girls in AP English literally dragged me from my seat at senior Prom to make me awkwardly dance with them, and it was awesome), but...well, I'm working on it, but I've got people I consider friends, so it's a step forward.

      But yeah, your spelling is fine, and I'm working on not spazzing out and pissing off random people over grammar anymore. I'll save it for more important stuff. No point in pissing someone off because they didn't type something right.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.