Frozen Peas

An all too common modern day tragedy.

Readership: All; Men;
Theme: Duluth
Author’s Note: This is a follow up from yesterday’s post, Revisiting Duluth as a viable model for explaining intimate partner violence (2022-10-2). I have already told this story, many times. But for some reason I feel this story needs to be reposted from time to time. This version is based on the original composition I wrote, retrieved from The Courtship Pledge using The Wayback Machine. Minor editing, formatting, and images added by Jack.
Reader’s Note: This story also appears on my new blog at Substack, The Age of Subjectivity: The Story of Jim (2022-10-3).
Length: 1,800 words
Reading Time: 10 minutes

I recently was in a pretty heated discussion over on a Facebook page I regularly frequent and the topic of domestic violence came up.

It made me want to get this down in writing. It is an aggregate composite of the typical, or “modal” story of how men are processed through the domestic violence machine in America. It comes from my experience as a participant in that system.

The Story of Jim

Jim is a regular, blue collar husband living in the bay area of northern California. He works hard every day and has done well enough to provide for his wife Susan to be a stay-at-home mom.

One day, Jim comes home and the house is quiet and empty. Susan is probably at the grocery store and the kids are at their friends house playing. So he takes his shoes off, grabs a beer and heads to the couch to relax. It was a particularly tough day. His boss yelled at him and his crew several times for some pretty big mistakes they made today.

Over the course of the next 45 minutes, Jim has another beer. Then he hears the car pull into the garage and he gets up to help Susan carry in the groceries. He meets her at the driver door and gives her a peck on the cheek. They go through the usual pleasantries while they carry in bags of groceries together.

As they stand in the kitchen putting them away, Jim remembers he asked Susan to pay the electricity bill that day. It was overlooked and they received a disconnect notice. She tells him she forgot and an argument ensues. Both Jim and Susan are “hot heads.” It’s part of the dynamic of their relationship. Usually it works for them, but not this time. Eventually the argument goes in many directions, as they often do with married couples.

“Well, you always…”

“Oh yeah, well what about the time when…”

Exasperated, Jim slams a bag of frozen peas down on the kitchen countertop. The bag splits open and the peas spill out everywhere.

Jim grabs another beer and yells, “You deal with the house with the fvcking power turned off tomorrow then!”, as he slams the door on his way out to his workshop. The neighbors hear the yelling.

Jim doesn’t know it, but just like the frozen peas spilling out of the bag, he has just set in motion a chain of events that he cannot stop now.

Susan is crying. She legitimately feels bad about the bill. She calls her friend Jessie whose husband was removed from the house and has not seen their kids in months. Jessie tells Susan, “That business with the peas and the door slamming is abuse! He is intimidating you!”

It’s not clear who called the police. Was it Jessie? Susan? The neighbors?

While Jim fiddles with something in his workshop to calm down, the police pull up and start walking up his driveway. He literally has no idea why they are there.

They ask him if everything is alright. They see the beer. He says, “Of course it is. Why are you guys here?”

“Listen buddy. We will ask the questions. Where is your wife?”

“I guess she is inside where I left her.”

One of the cops stays with Jim and starts asking him questions about the “fight.” Jim perceives it as an argument that normal married people have, but he guesses “fight” sort of works.

This occurs in a county where the sheriff has given guidance to the police that heavily favors an arrest of the man in these cases. Jim is about to see how that works.

The police fall back on their guidance which uses suggestive language right out of the outdated, anti-male Duluth Power and Control model. They believe Susan is not telling them everything to protect Jim, because she is a victim of his abuse and she is scared. They just cannot believe this was about frozen peas being slammed into the counter.

The kids come home just in time to see Jim placed in a police cruiser and hauled off. They are weeping and distressed. They don’t understand. Susan doesn’t really either.

The Duluth language is all over the police report, obfuscating the actual events with the peas and the door slamming. Jim was “intoxicated” and Susan was clearly being “manipulated into not saying anything.”

At the hearing the next day, the judge issues an AUTOMATIC restraining order and also tells Jim he can start Domestic Violence Batterer’s Intervention classes at his own expense, PENDING A CONVICTION. He tells him this would be seen as a good faith act that will be looked favorably upon by the court.

Jim cannot see, talk to or in any other way communicate with his wife or kids. He is sleeping on his friends couch.

Feeling hopeless, he enters the program through a private company that offers this service. He must pay the DV agency 50 dollars for each 2 hour weekly session. If he misses, he still has to pay the 50 AND make up the session and pay for that session too. If he is convicted and misses more than 4 sessions, it is considered a probation violation and he goes back to jail.

The day of the trial comes, and Jim has already forked out 400 dollars for the class and he is of course, convicted of “domestic terroristic threats.” He is finally allowed back into his home.

Tensions are now extremely high in the house and Jim has to miss one entire evening with the family every week for another 8 months. He makes enough money, but the cost is getting prohibitive. They cancel some things they had planned so he can pay the agency. Susan blames Jim for this — she has been reading and talking to Jessie a lot about “the dynamics of power and control.” She starts to see Jim as a patriarchal pig who just wants to control her. Jim hears the same thing from his counselor, Scott at the agency.

During the classes, Jim hears Scott talk about the division of household chores, gender roles, oppressive patriarchal systems, etc. He thinks to himself, “Yeah, but my wife says she likes staying home and taking care of it and us. Besides, the reason she does more of that stuff is because I am at work all day.”

But Jim MUST regurgitate what he hears in these sessions because Scott types a report recording what Jim says in the session which goes directly to his probation officer. Each time he meets with the officer, he is confronted with what he said in group. You see, it’s not just matter of attendance, but he MUST SAY the right things in group or he can be violated and sent back to jail, and ordered to square one of the groups for not progressing.

One day, Jim comes home from work. It is a group night, so he is rushed. He is informed by Susan that their son, Jimmy was suspended today for saying something inappropriate to a girl at school.

Just then, his daughter Becky walks in wearing a “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” t-shirt, that she had on all day at the same school.

He starts pointing this out to Susan which creates another argument. It is pretty heated but no violence. Jim leaves for group.

When he comes home, the police are waiting again. They take a report but no one is arrested this time.

That report, of course, gets back to Jims probation officer. The officer and judge have a lot of leeway in a case like this and go ‘easy’ on him. A new restraining order is placed, but Jim gets to stay in the group at the same spot — no repeat. Jim now has to move out again and so he gets a cheap apartment. He really can’t afford it, but he is told by Scott, “These are the consequences of your behavior.”

Jim and Susan agree on a visitation schedule through the probation officer. Susan usually flakes on this agreement. One week at group, as Jim’s weekend approaches, he shares his excitement with the other men in the group. They talk about how he is going to use his communication skills and strategies for coping if things get stressful.

The following week, Scott asks Jim, “So, tell the group how the weekend went.”

Jim looks depressed and reports that Susan said she forgot it was her weekend. He swears they confirmed it 2 or 3 times. By the time he got a hold of her the weekend was over and he had to reschedule again. He has not seen his children in several weeks now.

Eventually, Jim completes the course and as part of the terms of his probation he is now “free.”

During the 12 months of group, Susan filed for divorce, and has not let him see the kids once.

Jim is broke, paying for a family he does not see and a house he does not live in. His wife and kids live in the house now with Susans new unemployed boyfriend.

The only reason Jim doesn’t kill himself is the hope of one day being reunited with Susan and his children. He stupidly thought marriage was forever.

This is how the DV machine grinds men to dust. All because Jim slammed a bag of frozen peas down on the counter.

Epilogue

The DV machine as I have described it consists of:

  1. Lawmakers at the local, state and federal level who have taken the Duluth model and codified it into law. This effectively removes the due process safeguards against wrongful prosecution like “the right to face one’s accuser” and “equal protection under the law.” This models presuppositions are based on assumptions that have never been validated or replicated through the academic rigor of scientific peer review.
  2. Judges who believe the rhetoric of “man up and take it” and other nonsense from the culture.
  3. Police officers (mostly men) whose greatest kryptonite is a weeping woman in the corner. All men dream of saving the damsel in distress, and they get paid to do exactly that.
  4. Mental health professionals who run these agencies that cater to only one client — men who are ordered into batterer’s intervention and must pay for it at their own expense. See any conflict of interest there?

Related

This entry was posted in Boundaries, Collective Strength, Conflict Management, Courtship and Marriage, Elite Cultural Influences, Enduring Suffering, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Intersexual Dynamics, Models of Failure, Personal Domain, Politics, Psychology, Relationships, Self-Control, Society, Sphere of Influence. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Frozen Peas

  1. Pingback: Revisiting Duluth as a viable model for explaining intimate partner violence | Σ Frame

  2. Jcepi1 says:

    This is exactly what I’m facing in Arizona. I’ve already attended about 7 groups voluntarily in the past. The groups were led by a woman. My first court hearing all court staff were women: judge, recorder, techie, victim advocate, secretary, and both city prosecuting attorney’s. Duluth means: put your b@lls@ck on the table for removal and agree with it or else. I’ll have to presedate myself for my next hearing so I don’t go @pesh!t on those b!tches. I’m living in my RV because I asked my wife to leave the house and attempted to escort her out by grabbing her arm. They always send a man/woman cop team. Diversion reeducation costs $1500 for 24 groups plus $400 for your booking fee when arrested…..then if it’s 1st time offense, charges are dismissed. Needless to say I’m p!ssed.

    Like

  3. thedeti says:

    The fear of this happening is one of the things that gives women power. Don’t think women don’t know this. They do. They very well understand that all they have to do is peep “I feel unsafe” and within minutes, about 6 people in dark uniforms with hands on holstered and unsnapped guns will show up to kick the sh!t out of, or fill full of lead, whatever is making her “feel unsafe”.

    Which is why I’ve made clear: If my wife ever even threatens to drop dime to the cops, we’re done. Wife calling the cops or threatening to do so is a raw pure power play, plain and simple. No. Not having it. Papers will be on file the next business day, and the chips will fall wherever they may.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      You can add the following power play/manipulations to calling the cops that will result in divorce.

      Threatening divorce as a leverage point
      Using the kids as a leverage point
      Withholding sex as a leverage point

      What any of these show is that she is willing to cross boundaries that are very, very easy to avoid, for power.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Kentucky Gent says:

      They very well understand that all they have to do is peep “I feel unsafe” and…

      The last time I saw my older sister was at my brother’s destination wedding 4 years ago. We all shared a rental house. After the wedding, as per her usual, she started an argument to try to convince me that her serial violation of my boundaries was just fine.

      After shouting back and forth for maybe 10 minutes (yes, that long!), I won the arument by getting her to inadvertantly agree with my position. Which shut her up completely, and she sat there fuming with active bitch face for about a minute. We all know how to read our family members, and she. was. pissed. My mother was there to see it as well. Then without a word she went to her bedroom and to sleep for the night.

      The next morning she started the argument up again, this time with a different tactic – attacking my behavior. Eventually she said the words: “I felt frightened.”

      I called BS, and shut down her argument on the basis that she had interrupted a conversation between me and our mother, and she had to wait her turn to speak. My sister hates to wait for other people because she is so much better than us, you see. So she stormed out.

      Well, it was time to return home. And since I already knew about the Diluth model, I knew where she could take all of this. So I demanded she retract her lie (btw, our mother also called her out for the lie!). She ignored my demand, so I did what I had to do, and cut her out of my life.

      tl;dr: The Diluth model can ruin relationships even with women who aren’t your wife or gf.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. thedeti says:

    “Lawmakers at the local, state and federal level who have taken the Duluth model and codified it into law. This effectively removes the due process safeguards against wrongful prosecution like “the right to face one’s accuser” and “equal protection under the law.”

    Due process and equal protection are federal constitutional concepts (and in some cases, state concepts) that just don’t get any play here. The rationale is that these are local law enforcement matters and family law matters that federal courts don’t want to deal with and that courts in general don’t see as reaching constitutional dimension. (It’s really funny — federal courts will exercise jurisdiction over all kinds of local issues, like Christians who don’t want to make “wedding cakes” for h0m0sexuals and whether mentally ill transgenders can use the bathrooms of the sex they “identify with”; but don’t want to get involved when draconian dragnets catch ordinary couples having fights in their wide nets. And that’s all this was — Jim and Susan having a fight.)

    Federal courts also view this as men waiving constitutional challenges to these laws. The accused had choices: He “chose” to “brutalize” a woman; he “chose” to go through the “program”; he chose to try to keep a conviction off his record; he “chose” to go to counseling. He could always plead out to a lesser offense, or take his chances and go to trial. So by doing it the State’s way, he’s waived his rights.

    (In reality, in most cases Jim can plead this down to a misdemeanor “drunk and disorderly conduct” or “disturbing the peace” or some other petty offense. This is Jim’s first “offense”. He pays a fine and sentenced to “time served” (his 3 hours at the police station getting booked and printed), and a stern “I don’t want to see you in my courtroom again” warning from the judge.)

    But let’s say Jim pleads it down and goes home after his evening at the station. He’s properly cowed now. He’s properly “broken” and “trained”. Susan has ALL the power now. If he gets “bossy” or loud or they have another loud fight, or she screws up again, or he does — all she has to do is threaten to drop dime to the cops on him and it’s offense #2. Jim WILL go to jail for either a series of weekends or for a month. He’ll lose his job, he’ll lose the house. They both know it.

    So that means Susan runs the house now. “You’re doing it my way now, Jim, or I’ll call the cops on you.”

    That’s why I’ve told mrs. deti: “Call the cops, we’re done. I’m filing as soon as possible.” I don’t care if it means living in a 1 bedroom walkup for the rest of my life. I won’t live that way. I won’t do it.

    Liked by 6 people

    • feeriker says:

      “That’s why I’ve told mrs. deti: “Call the cops, we’re done. I’m filing as soon as possible.” I don’t care if it means living in a 1 bedroom walkup for the rest of my life. I won’t live that way. I won’t do it.”

      That’s the reasonable response. I personally know two men who are in what can most charitably described as “volatile” marriages who have told me, “If she EVER calls the cops on me, I’ll kill her. If I’m going to go to jail, it’s going to be for murder.” (“In for a dime, in for a dollar.”)

      One has to wonder if the purveyors of this sick, destructive system know that they’re putting women’s lives in greater danger than ever by putting men in positions of having nothing left to lose by reacting to female abuse in the most extreme manner possible. Might it just be their intention to make the system as lethal as possible to all parties involved? That certainly would accord with TPTB’s “Great Reset” plans.

      Liked by 6 people

      • thedeti says:

        I won’t kill anyone, least of all Mrs. deti. But I won’t remain married to her.

        I’m much like Scott and Ed Hurst in the last thread. Even if it gets really bad, I won’t do suicide, suicide by cop, or homicide which will certainly result in a long prison term. Nope. I just won’t stay married to her, and I don’t care if that means lifetime alimony and a life of isolation. I will not live with a tyrant. I won’t do it.

        Liked by 6 people

  5. info says:

    Its interesting to see women advocating for Men even in the early 20th century:

    1919 – Dorothy Dix – journalist, “the world’s most highly paid woman writer”

    “Among my acquaintances is a piteous old man, who is dying of a broken heart because his wife has alienated the affections of his only child from him.
    This father belongs in the ranks of those who earn their bread by the sweat of their brows. Life has been hard to him, but the one rose that has bloomed along his arid pathway has seen his little daughter, and he has found no toil too hard to keep her soft and safe, no sacrifices too great to make to give her a fine education.
    While the girl was little she was a joy to him as she cuddled in his arms and pressed her rosy little cheek to his worn one, but as she has grown older her mother has weaned her away from her father and taught her to look with contempt upon him, so that now she treats him with coldness and neglect, and pays him not so much attention as she would to a faithful old workhorse.
    And it has turned the father’s world to dust and ashes.
    One would think that a woman who turns her children against their father and robs him of their love must be a fiend incarnate. She would be if she committed the crime deliberately, but she does it without realizing what a terrible thing she is doing, or how far-reaching and disastrous are its consequences.
    For many other women are guilty of this same offense. Occasionally a mother weans her children away from their father through a morbid jealousy. She wants to be all in all to them. She cannot bear for them to love anyone else, not even their father, as well as they love her. She is filled with torturing fear that they may even prefer their father to her, as children often do if left to follow unhampered their own impulses.”

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2012/06/dorothy-dix-on-parental-alienation-1919.html

    In tandem with the rise of Women’s Suffrage is the rise in Murder of Men:
    from October 6, 1912:
    “Increase of Homicides by Women. Especially in West and South. Accompanied by Growing Unwillingness of Juries to Convict Female Offenders – Petticoats Confer Immunity – Men Usually Victims – Prominent Attorney Analyzes Stagecraft by Which Women Defendants Work on Sympathy of Male Jurors – Three Recent Cases in St. Louis in Which Women Were Acquitted —-

    Some future historian of the feminist revolution will attempt to explain why the rise of woman towards equal suffrage and economic independence was concomitant, in the first part of the twentieth century, with a remarkable crescendo of feminine crime, particularly murder; and will trace the curious process by which the human savage, who more than any other mammal held his females in abject servility, became gradually so uxorious that he not only failed to avenge homicidal rebellions effected against his own sex by his former underlings, but, through the voice of his juries, even pardoned and justified them in their crimes.

    The murder of men by women, is proved by criminal records to be steadily on the increase, especially in the South and West; and this deplorable phenomenon accompanies, and is no doubt partly due to, a waxing unwillingness on the part of men to convict any woman of a capital offense. The defendant may be ignorant, homely and and depraved; she may be in all respects inferior to the average man and even to criminal man; her guilt of a cowardly and revolting crime may be obvious to every impartial mind; but her petticoats hedge her about with a mysterious divinity which practically assures her of immunity. It is declared that on an average a man is slain by a woman every day in the United States, and that scarcely one conviction occurs in 50 such cases.

    The historian will point out that, while women were on every hand asserting their equality with men in nearly every field, those accused of crime instantly betook themselves for defense to the ancient fortress of the sex – male pity aroused by woman’s weakness; and that the defendants hastened to emphasize their pose of hopelessness with every means afforded by dress, falsehood and tears.

    The annalist will relate that dexterous lawyers her husband to death: Women are spiteful. They would show no mercy to a woman. They would take pleasure in convicting me.”

    Women back in the day were more likely to convict guilty women:

    Judge Frank E. Johnston Jr. – Chicago – 1920

    “When women judge members of their own sex, it is a sure thing that no more sentimentality will effect the prisoner’s release. Women jurors will vote to convict a guilty woman every time, and we intend to make Chicago safe for husbands.”

    https://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2018/02/1912-man-is-killed-by-woman-every-day.html

    What a contrast to today when the feminist ideology is victorious over both Men and Women both more completely. In the Early 20th Century Chivalry is clearly shown to be responsible for the coddling of feminists and helping to enable their cultural dominance.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. Jack says:

    Duluth is a two post mini-series I am squeezing in to draw attention to Scott’s new blog, The Age of Subjectivity. I doubt Scott will write here any more since he’s got his own blog again now, and I don’t have any other drafts from him in the works. Knowing how popular Scott’s posts usually are, I hope this will not be too much of a disappointment to all our readers. However, for those interested in Duluth and other topics at the cutting edge of applied psychology, I expect Scott will write more about that at his place. I sincerely hope he will continue to increase awareness about this problem.

    Tomorrow the theme for October will begin with a post from Red Pill Apostle. The theme will be Feminine Submission. RPA and I will cover what it looks like, and go over some of the ins and outs. Lest we forget.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Joe2 says:

    It’s not clear who called the police. Was it Jessie? Susan? The neighbors?

    From my experience, it seems the reaction of police to domestic violence calls depends on two things. In Jim’s case, it would be the statement from Susan and whether Jim was actually on the premises when the police arrived.

    I called the police on neighbors who were having a real domestic violence fight – screaming, breaking of dishes / glasses, banging against the walls, threats, and crying. All of this taking place late at night.

    The police arrived and asked the woman if everything is O.K. and whether she needed medical treatment for her bloody face which she declined. They then had her explain how all the dishes / glasses got broken. She concocted a story claiming that while she was doing some cleaning and moving she tripped causing the dishes / glasses to fall on her and subsequently knock over some furniture. The police then asked if they could “take a look around” and found nothing. The man involved had left moments before the police arrived.

    The police left and did nothing, presumably because they couldn’t place the man at the scene at the time of the incident. The next day it was back to normal and it would be hard to believe what had happened that night before.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: Additional Thoughts on the Head Covering and Submission | okrahead

  9. redpillboomer says:

    Never dealt with a Duluth situation, thank God. However, when my daughter was a teenager, her mom (my wife) and I were dealing with her teenage rebellious phase. My daughter got wind of the power SHE had as a teenager to wield against mom and dad through the child services system, DFACS.

    We had an BIG issue with her keeping her room clean. Our big concern was it was so incredibly messy in there that it was one big tripping hazard. We were concerned one of our kids was going to hurt themselves falling over the piles of her crap.

    Well, my daughter called DFACS and they showed up at our doorstep. My wife and I were “INTERVIEWED,” it was more like interrogated, and I could see where this was heading. I felt momentarily helpless because we were definitely being looked at as abusers–guilty until proven innocent.

    Well, there is quite the ironic ending to this story. My daughter had neglected to clean her room (of course) the day the DFACS people showed up. After interviewing me and my wife, they wanted to talk privately with my daughter…bet you guessed it…in her bedroom. I’ll never forget my wife and I hearing from the living room downstairs as the DFACS ladies (two women, of course) entered my daughter’s room. They said in unison, “Oh, Rachel, what is this??? OMG, we can’t talk to you in here.” The ladies had to interview her in the hallway. After they finished, they came downstairs, talked to us for a bit, left and we NEVER heard another word from them except a while later we received a letter that they closed the file after visiting us, as in there was no abuse noted–case closed. They saw for themselves first hand and they got it that my daughter was in no way, shape or form abused; if anything, she was abusing her parents and trying to use the system on us to get her way.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      I had a similar experience as RPB. In the awkward period of time between when my first wife left me and when our divorce was final, my ex went to extravagant lengths trying to frame me as an abuser by any definition she could cook up so that she could have an advantage in the divorce proceedings. Once she called the child welfare agency claiming that I was abusing our daughters. In response to her call, a couple women from the agency came to visit my house one day. They talked with me and my daughters for about 40 minutes, and ascertained that my daughters were quite happy living with me and that they were exceptionally emotionally healthy (in spite of their mother’s drama, thank God). When they left, they said in so many words, “We can clearly see that there is no abuse here and that your wife is trying to create conflict.” As for me, RPB, and others who have had a similar experience of near escape, we can be thankful that God sends us those particular decision making individuals within those organizations who are discerning and fair minded.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Oh, your daughter called child protective services?

      Either one of my kids ever does that, I revoke all privileges. Driving? Nope. I revoke my permission for you to have a drivers license. You can get it when you’re 18. You need to get somewhere? Ride your bike. Friends? Sure – they can see you in my house; you’re not going over there. Cellphone? You can have a flip phone for calls. No smartphones with wifi. Nope. I’m not paying for that. No gym memberships, no spare cash. No extras at all. And you need to make plans for your living arrangements for age 18 and after, because on your 18th birthday, you will no longer be living in my house. Your things will be packed up and moved to your new place or put on the street. I will get an eviction order and a notice to vacate. You will not be living with me. And you will be supporting yourself.

      You create an adversarial relationship by siccing the state on me? No. We’re done. Forever.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. okrahead says:

    So, as per Deti’s comment above…. If a woman threatens to call the cops on you, she’s threatening to kill you. We might not want to think about it that way, but that’s why we call cops… Someone is behaving in a way that we believe needs to be stopped, including with physical violence is necessary.
    If someone is trying to break into my house, I will call the police. That’s not all I will do, and not even the first thing, but it’s definitely on the list. I will call the police because I want armed men able to use lethal force to remove the intruder. Which means the intruder will be in serious danger of severe bodily harm and death from someone besides myself.

    A woman who calls the cops is using lethal violence, she is just outsourcing it.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Eric Francis Silk says:

    I read the title and immediately thought about Orson Welles.

    “We know a remote farm in Lincolnshire where a Mrs. Buckley lives. Every July, peas grow there…”

    Like

  12. Pingback: The Duluth Model – Cornerstone

  13. Pingback: Word from the Dark Side – Dream a Little Dream, NeoCons reign supreme, nuclear Covid scheme and camouflage most extreme | SovietMen

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 )

Connecting to %s