The US Soccer Equal Pay Law Suit: No, Megan, Truth Is Not Misogyny

The U.S. women put on their angry faces and inside-out jerseys in protest…

I would add to that title “And you know it,” but I’m not really sure United States Women’s National Team captain and star Megan Rapinoe do know it. She’s an extreme ideologue, and facts are just obstacles to activists like her. Even if it’s sincere, however, her ridiculous indignation—- because the defense to a legal action based on posturing rather than reality made a predictable and irrefutable point— is ethically indefensible, except on the basis that it worked.

I don’t know that I’ve ever seen or heard of something quite like this. An opposing party has thrown a fit over factual representations in an adversary court filing, on the grounds that it’s mean to assert the truth, and people are taking that complaint seriously.


The United States Women’s National Team is suing U.S. Soccer for gender discrimination because the men’s team, they argue, is paid more “for the same work.” In its counter motion opposing the motion by the women’s lawyers for the court to grant them summary judgment—a routine and usually futile request—the lawyers for U.S. Soccer  replied in part that

“The point is that the job of [a men’s national team] player (competing against senior men’s national teams) requires a higher level of skill based on speed and strength than does the job of [a women’s national team] player (competing against senior women’s national teams).”

Never mind that the job of lawyers is advocacy, and that taking the position that the other side’s claims are hogwash is what lawyers do and are ethically bound to do when they defend a lawsuit. That statement was simple truth. The New York Times, predictably slanting the story to preserve its progressive bona fides (at the expense of its duty to give the news straight, but…you know), wrote that the motion argued that “the players on its World Cup-winning women’s national team were inferior to men.” No, it argued that they don’t play soccer as well, and they don’t.

Since there is no legitimate rebuttal to the argument, the women resorted to the PR equivalent of tears.  United States Women’s National Team captain and star Megan Rapinoe  claimed that the federation’s court filings had wielded “blatant misogyny and sexism”against the women’s team. Another spokeswoman for the female players called the federation’s argument “plain simple sexism” that “sounds as if it has been made by a cave man.”

Good one! But it’s pure grandstanding. There is no plausible argument that the women play soccer as well as the men, or that the men’s soccer product is not superior from a quality of play standpoint. It may be ungallant to bring it up, but the world champion U.S. Women’s National Team lost badly to an under-15 team of teenage boys in a scrimmage. Yes, that game was a lark, but imagine, say, the Washington Nationals losing a baseball game against a high school team. It wouldn’t and couldn’t happen. This happened because, as everyone knows, women athletes are not as large, strong or fast as male athletes at the same level or even lesser levels.

Serena Williams has admitted that she would not beat any of the top hundred ranked professional male tennis players. Female pro golfers tee off from a spot closer to the green than male pro golfers. All the male records in track and field events surpass all the female records in the same events. NBA players are so much superior to WNBA players that nobody would try to argue otherwise.

Nevertheless, after the over-the-top accusations of sexism, on-field protests by members of the women’s team, criticism from major U.S. Soccer sponsors and public condemnation by members of the organization’s board of directors, Carlos Cordeiro, the president of the United States Soccer Federation, groveled an apology for his organization’s lawyers’ undiplomatic words, and then resigned. Now a former female star soccer player, Cindy Parlow Cone, has taken over as U.S. Soccer president. Do you think she’ll have the integrity to tell the women players, the court and the world the unpleasant truth? Well who knows? Women have as much integrity and honesty as men, and there are chipmunks with more fortitude than her male predecessor, Cordeiro.

This is how woke causes keep succeeding: utter cowardice by officials, and an unwillingness to call fantasy fantasy and nonsense nonsense while opposing objectively wrong positions when their advocates are any kind of minority or belong to a sympathetic demographic. This lawsuit is particularly disingenuous. As Cordeiro explained before he slunk off into the night,

Over the past decade, U.S. Soccer has paid our Women’s National Team more than our Men’s National Team. From 2010 through 2018, U.S. Soccer paid our women $34.1 million in salaries and game bonuses, and we paid our men $26.4 million — not counting the significant additional value of various benefits that our women’s players receive but which our men do not.

Yup, those shamefully mistreated women have been paid more than their male counterparts.

This suit, however, is about advancing an ideological ball, not soccer. The soccer issue could be settled easily: just have the men’s team play the women’s team in a series of, say, seven games, under the same rules with a healthy pot at stake, and watch what happens. The result would be embarrassing, of course, and thus would harm a U.S. Soccer product while disillusioning women’s soccer fans. It won’t happen, but the challenge should be made just to watch Rapinoe and her team mates posture and protest. It would, after all, be misogyny for the men to beat the living daylights out of her team, just like it is misogyny not to force lawyers to endorse politically correct myths for the benefit of the opposing litigants.


Sources: Washington Post, New York Times, Washington Examiner

36 thoughts on “The US Soccer Equal Pay Law Suit: No, Megan, Truth Is Not Misogyny

  1. A comparison of relative skill levels does not seem to be particularly apt when every member of each team is paid the same despite obviously different skill levels. If skill does not matter within a team, why should it matter between the two teams?
    The women’s national team (WMT) and the men’s national team (MNT) have very different pay schedules based on collective bargaining agreements, and, to me, therein lies the problem. The U.S. soccer federation seems to be hiring entertainers and it has perpetrated (or at least allowed) different pay schedules based on gender rather than on skill levels.
    One aspect of the two agreements is the bonuses paid for World Cup play; the men receive much larger bonuses than the women, and that is not based on winning, but on the payout from FIFA. (Viewership and revenue for the men’s World Cup is far larger than for the women’s.)
    There seem to be sound reasons for the different bargaining agreements, so the ethical (and possibly legal) question comes down to whether or not the separate agreements should be allowed. Or, in other words, is it discriminatory that the WMT negotiated what to them now seems to be an inferior contract?

    • Then shouldn’t the lawsuit be that FIFA is discriminatory in the way it distributes revenue? Why don’t they sue those wonderfully woke and enlightened Europeans?

        • I wonder if the court, whichever has jurisdiction, could FORCE a say three game-series between the men and women? Then, they could set salary levels based on score discrepancies. That would seem to be a fair and just way to go.

  2. Let the women’s team play in the men’s tournament and see how that works out. Then compare revenues generated by the women’s division and the mens’s to determine if there’s enough money to make the pay work out. Done.

  3. Does Serena Williams get paid more money than the male players that she IS capable of beating in a match? The USWNT may not be able to beat the men, but they’ve beaten pretty much all the women in the rest of the world. From my point of view, that’s what’s important. Their job is to beat the other teams. The men have pretty much abjectly failed at the job they’ve been given while the women have excelled. I am not a soccer fan at all, so this may just be based on what media sources I’ve read and seen, but I can’t name a single man on the US national team. I know several European male players’ names, and a bunch of the women’s names. Seems wrong, if the men are so much better. I don’t know the salary differences enough to comment on them in particular, but I think the days of “the men’s team brings more revenue” need to be replaced by “the women’s team has won four World Cups and you guys are all fired because you didn’t even qualify.” Let’s not even talk salaries at this point. Here’s Johnny’s comment above does make a good point – the women should renegotiate.

    • The men’s games are much, MUCH more popular and bring in much more revenue, by virtue of the higher level of strength and skill required. People prefer to watch the most elite athletes.

      A AAA player doesn’t earn as much as a major league player, and the AAA teams don’t earn as much as major league teams. Wins and losses are not relevant here. The men’s games are played at a higher level.

  4. From a let us say *cosmic perspective* we know what a woman is and what women are. And we know what a woman is not. It is only within structures provided by men that woman can carry on as she does today.

    The question then, in our present time of disruption, dissent, rebellion and violation of proper and accepted rôles, is Why is this happening? But right here, with this structural outline, the essential problem is revealed: what we see, know and understand to be true, is counter-proposed by *false appearance* and what we are forced to see and believe by the world surrounding us.

    Therefore: we have to critically examine the ideological structures that are brought to bear on us and against us. In this and so many different areas that we accept as *normal*.

    The distorted woman, the overt *acting out* lesbian, who turns to imitation of man for her essential model and demands to sever her connection with traditional femininity, is part of a phenomenon of rebellion which itself is borne out of imbalance and distortion. Today, certain of these women are given TeeVee programs and present themselves through highly managed public-relations.

    The hysterical demand — a demand rises up in an unbalanced, rebellion female — requires a particular *shrill* note which repels and offends at the same time. Today, that note terrifies and also cowes most men. The scowls on the faces of these anti-women reveal a great deal.

    But none of this is quite to the point. The larger point — the cosmic point if you will — is what happens to a person, to a people, to a nation and then to a world-community when female rebellion is given power? Because it is just what they say it is: an open and a rather vicious *battle against the Patriarchy* the purpose of which — they say this, more or less — is to destroy or excessively modify and undermine men and masculinity. The radical feminists and lesbians said this from the very beginning.

    Women who turn against men and man — that is, against patriarchy — eventually, necessarily, sacrifice & devour their own sons. And in that act, brutal & terrifying, one clearly understands what *god* is served.

    Woman’s rebellion in this advanced, modern sense, is given an ethical veneer but it is precisely the opposite of that! But these ‘transvaluations of values’ are what characterize our present, and in one degree or another they have us all captured and in abeyance.

    Consider Shulamith Firestone (Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution):

    Just as to ensure elimination of economic classes requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and, in a temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of control of reproduction: not only the full restoration to women of ownership of their own bodies, but also their [temporary] seizure of control of human fertility—the new population biology as well as all the social institutions of child-bearing and child-rearing. … The end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally.

    So, sure, if one wants to *study mere surfaces* one can feel indignation at the impropriety of their preposterous social protest. But there is a far more cataclysmic *interior level* to the surface display.

    All of this, in one way or another, at one time or another, is going to have to be turned back. We either define the foundations on which we build our world, and work to preserve and instill the value-structures that arise naturally from these, or we resolve to flow along in the established currents, powerless.

    The fact that we are in profound confusion about all these matters reveals the level and intensity of the overturning.

    • Feminism never defines what “equal” means, and therefore never has to admit the goals have been met. Since the goal posts of victory are constantly moving away, the struggle can continue indefinitely.

      • That’s interesting.

        My sense is that the whole thing, the whole game, is based fundamentally in a Lie. What they are ‘after’ is not what they say they are after. They are lying. They lie because they took leave of them selves at a very basic level*. But at that point one has to take a radical turn against *appearance* and *rhetoric* and make a radical choice to dismantle the lie. This leads right to the heart of not only female deceptiveness, but deceptive structures (or currents or modes) that operate all around us, which are by their nature *feminine*. (This does require explanation).

        [*We all ‘take leave’ of our selves]

        Otto Weininger, a rather odd philosopher, here paraphrased [my italics]:

        Weininger observed that nothing is more baffling for a man than a woman’s response when caught in a lie. When asked why she is lying, she is unable to understand the question, acts astonished, bursts out crying, or seeks to pacify him by smiling. She cannot understand the ethical and transcendent side of lying or the fact that a lie represents damage to being and, as was acknowledged in ancient Iran, constitutes a crime even worse than killing. The truth, pure and simple, is that woman is prone to lie and to disguise her true self even when she has no need to do so; this is not a social trait acquired in the struggle for existence, but something linked to her deepest and most genuine nature.


        In my view, we women are asked to *participate in lies*. In fact we are forced — demanded — to participate in lies. The basic lie, I think I can state it, is that we can be in any sense independent. The first lie is there. The notion of female independence is central to American progressivism and to the modernist progressivism that also swept over Europe. It is part of ‘hyper-liberalism’ and can hardly be questioned since it can hardly be recognized (seen).

        True, one could assert that ‘transcendental truths’ do not really exist and are arbitrary and ‘patriarchal’, and that is of course what many feminists do say! but that of course is [also] where the First Lies have their origin.

        There is a ‘general project’ of course in progressive modernism: overturning transcendental metaphysical categories. You have to do that if Lies can stand on their own. One really has to get committed to lying to get involved in all that, and yet it is certainly done. Indeed our present ideology is just such an outcome . . . of just such essential lies.

        These are, of course, hard *absolute* statements that I am making: but that is exactly what is needed today: statements that challenge the unchallengeable certainties of the present.

        Predictably, I do not anticipate ever being invited on to The Ellen Show until Kali Yuga wanes! 🙂

        • You bring up many good points.

          The feminist ideology is in many aspects a zero sum game, as there are many ‘truths’ that must be embraced and believed wholeheartedly and without question, for doubt is a tool of the patriarchy, and to doubt is to be complicit not only in ones own oppression, but the oppression of the Sisterhood as a whole.

          The ‘Big Lie’ in regards to the feminist movement (at least since it’s 2nd wave) has been that it is about ‘equality’. If that were the endgame, then the feminists have already achieved victory, and in some cases are even more equal (see the criminal justice system, family courts, and higher education for examples).

    • The distorted woman, the overt *acting out* lesbian, who turns to imitation of man for her essential model and demands to sever her connection with traditional femininity,…

      As usual, no basis for this gratuitous prejudice (sorry for the redundancy, but I caught echoes of phobia in your exaggerated bias), and no purpose in it to support the subject, so I have to conclude that you don’t realize you are flattening your own argument. Pity to waste such a fine masculine brain on disrespect for your own sex.

      • There is always a danger when speaking in *absolutist* terms. I have been reading Julius Evola (again) because I lately concluded that if I am indeed going to succeed in defining a *true rightist & traditional position* that I am going to have to take what he wrote here seriously:

        My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.

        You likely anticipate where any conversion, of and depth and sincerity, would go if *gratuitous prejudice* became the topic discussed. Note that I’d be very willing to have that conversation though I think you would avoid it.

        Pity to waste such a fine masculine brain on disrespect for your own sex.

        I was born into a community of intensive mental activity. Hashing & rehashing, analysis & dissection. But I had to learn to turn it against *them* and really for my own protection.

        I have already anticipated all of this though (your insinuation, if I may term it that). Even if I have been, say, distorted, and even if I have had to fend myself in territories outside of my *nature*, still the ultimate question is What Do I Serve?

        That is the Great Question, isn’t it?

        You meant phobia as in homophobia I take it?

        [Remember that I revealed what my thinking is on a loooonnnggggg thread dedicated to this. It’s all there, no need to explain again.]

  5. Atta boy, Jack. Tell it like it is.

    Atta boy, lawyers for U.S. Soccer (male or female lawyers, or both).

    …and no wonder trans girls beat the living daylights out of straight girls high school tract and bicycle events .

    Be sure, Jack, to update us on this case.

  6. [PS: One of the reasons why I always am forced to say this blog is mainly composed of American progressives, and not Conservatives [of a genuine sort], is because I observe that what I just expressed here is understood as reactionary-radicalism and is seen to turn unnaturally against the Current of Time. That is to say that what I suggest — a critical reassessment of the reigning ideologies & their astounding power in many different areas — is received as lunacy and deviation of its own sort.]

  7. Forget the challenge series. We should immediately ban sports that are gender based. Why have two equivalent sports that are merely differentiated by the fact the teams all players have either xx or xy chromosomes. Why shouldnt women have the opportunity to prove their value by competing alongside men. It seems to me that by delineating teams along gender lines perpetuates the idea that there are actual differences in competitive ability.

    Stop the theoretical arguments, force the arguments to be proved on the field of battle not the courtroom. If Meghan and her cohorts want to get paid more in salaries go compete for a slot on the male dominated teams. We can call this change the Rapinoe decision.

    • See, Chris, you need to be reintegrated into the Truth. Can’t have you asking questions like that. It’s bad for The Revolution.

      To me, I have perceived this issue on two levels. The first is the salary agreement Women’s Soccer made with the relevant agencies. They made a pay agreement and now are angry they are not paid in parity to/with Mens Soccer. Live by the deal and die by the deal.

      The second level is that US Women’s Soccer us far superior relative to other national women’s teams, meaning the U.S. women’s team decimates other national women’s teams. Men’s Soccer is not at that level relative to other national teams. US men’s Soccer is probably twenty years behind most European, Brazilian, Argentinean, Mexican, and Croation men’s teams. Yet, men’s world soccer is more popular than women’s soccer. Consequently, men’s world soccer generates higher advertising revenue than women’s soccer. The devil is in revenue generation not misogyny.


      • Jvb

        Stop making logical arguments that make sense. Women negotiate deals all the time and codicle 3b stroke 2.5 in those negoiated agreements gives them the absolute right to change thier minds as the situation exists.

        All sarcasm aside you broke the issue down exactly as it is.

        My initial comment was semi-sarcastic such that in order for Rapinoe, et al to prove the point that they are performing essentially the same work for less pay they would have to play in the league in which males play or allow males to compete for slots on women’s teams. To do otherwise would allow every other soccor league to be justified in demanding equivalent pay.

        In short, I want to give these ladies their Pyrhic victory.

    • This is basically what I would have done with this lawsuit if I had been in charge. I would have dissolved the men and women’s teams and just had a team. I would have stated that we are not going to be sexist and recognize any gender-based differences and we will now only have a team of the best players that we will field in whatever category FIFA allows. Tryouts for each position would require specific tasks that would be repeatable and recorded (all goalie tryouts would have to try to block shots from the same set of players, etc). Selection would purely be by the numbers.

  8. I do not understand why modern feminists are so determined to destroy the advances of their grandmothers: to be able to compete on a fair playing field like the boys do. Between allowing trans in to take victory away from womem who work and train hard and making the very idea of separate women’s pro sports into a losing proposition.

    I doubt they are willing to play a tournament as our host suggests, they would just complain that the male players abuse their muscle and mass advantage. Perhaps a college champ team as they would hot have finished gaining peak mass? Or maybe a tournent of male vs female vs coed. If all female does well in audience and play, they can have their wish and destroy women’s sports and all the prtections for girl’s achievements and pride as they come of age. And their grandmothers who fought to create and celebrate women’s sports will spin in their graves.

    • Mariedowd wrote:

      I do not understand why modern feminists are so determined to destroy the advances of their grandmothers

      Because what they *say* their desire, goal & object is, is different from what they say.

      Because if you have genuinely & sincerely located a ‘negative attribute* (and are not engaging in hyperbole) you are forced, and we are all forced, to decipher what is said from what is done.

      I was thinking about a rather unique entity The Great American Bitch.

      One aspect of Americanism, in a spreading Americanopolis, is the *selling* of this terrifying creature to the rest of the world as ‘necessary evolution’.

      Again: trace back the causal chain. Or not of course! 🙂

      Martha: I disgust me. You know, there’s only been one man in my whole life who’s ever made me happy. Do you know that?


      Martha: George, my husband… George, who is out somewhere there in the dark, who is good to me – whom I revile, who can keep learning the games we play as quickly as I can change them. Who can make me happy and I do not wish to be happy. Yes, I do wish to be happy. George and Martha: Sad, sad, sad. Whom I will not forgive for having come to rest; for having seen me and having said: yes, this will do.

      [Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Edward Albee]

      • I refuse to accept the belief of words like bitch or slut are complements or badges of self power. Strong women no not have to be bitches. Most women have their mothers as models of this but cannot balance principle and compromise with stremgth.

        • With respect, were you to define what you mean by *strong women* and to define what *makes a woman strong*, you would likely elucidate certain aspects of feminism as it is now being questioned as a negative and not a positive development.

          Reading what you wrote I am caused to ask what is it that makes a woman *strong*? Because it seems obvious that to be a strong woman would have to mean to be strong in relation to some value or principle. But is it possible that some women get tricked into imitating a façade of strength or power that really is not strength nor power at all?

          The counter-propositional position taken by *anti-feminists* and *counter-feminists* [among the Dissident Right] is, of course, in its own way a series of absolutist positions. I recognize this. But the rise of the counter-propositional, if it is understood to be a corrective, is a natural development.

          I understand The American Bitch — if I refer to the popular concept — to be the rise of a woman who has been duped and tricked: short-changed at the most basic level. That is what the counter-feminists do indeed say. Women have been tricked into believing that their fulfillment can or will come through the modification or the abandonment of what is said to be our *traditional rôle*. But those rôles fit into larger social patterns and culture-wide they say that all sorts of ‘acids’ are at work.

          They refer to highly accomplished women who devoted their self to career and what had formerly been seen as ‘male accomplishment’ or the male mode of accomplishment. And at a certain point are then left alone with that because they failed to make other investments. Doesn’t *Bitch* mean profoundly dissatisfied woman whose power turns not *sweet and productive* but *sour and destructive*?

          In any case, the social proposition these days is that feminism sets out to *liberate woman*: that is its ethical declaration. But what if in fact — in the longer run shall I say — that it is really all part of a war against the feminine?

          • There’s a lot to unpuck in there but it’s hard to separate. Firstly the american empowered bitch as used by younger woman here where i am (I don’t ravel enough to confirm usage elsewhere) ia an aggressive female who is both self centered and low on balance, compassion, and negotiation skills. Think the female manager who makes all decisions based on her own interests and actively hampers and reduces not only the men around her but also the other woman. She is not a sister to other women but quick to throw anyone under the bus to make herself look better. She has no real accomplishment in her to believe in her achievements as she cannot admit anyone else has done anything valuable, like the fictional Sues no one else is valuable. In social areas she must be the center and be obeyed and honored, no matter how she treats the others around her. Harridan/maneater who abuses women too/tyrant who does not play well with others/takes innocuous things as threats and victimizing…

            These behaviors are counterproductive at best, and while the ‘bitch’ is usually female, it’s not about traditional roles, but about a LACK of understanding about interacting with others in group interaction. I think the problem is that these women think the qualities of good leaders of the past or even fiction are gender based. Caring about the mission and the others working for the same goal is not gender based. Soldiers have different risks than a monument preservation project, but good leaders in both groups have more in common than caring about gender.

            I don’t think there is a good definition for strong woman in our culture right now. SJWs have a very different set of criteria than others. The progressive definition is more a token checklist than a a real person who loves men in their lives and can balance ideals with fairness. This is how you get SHEro-Mary Sues like Rey and Captain Marvel who never stumble or have to learn after mistakes like real people.

            They don’t want the opportunity to achieve in a fair arena, they want to erase the old archetypes even if others want them. They hate the ‘housefrau’ so much, they feel only contempt for women who don’t reject the archetype. If they really wanted for women to be free, that means women should also be allowed to choose being housefraus if they want. They want to dictate that no woman have that role because they hate it. They cannot see that female leadership role models are still forming and will take a while for new ones to be clear, several generations. Just look at the differences between “Police Waman” of the 70s and ‘Rizzoli and Isles’ in the early teens. Some leadership tropes, like command starship officer gender doesn’t matter as much anymore. Mamma bear is a relativly newer female role that is powerful but not selfcentered. The mamma bear is a strong archetype that does not give up the feminine or the strong protective aspect. Feminists seem to think the ball-busting stock broker is the ideal modern woman.

      • Not hyperbole, severe dislike of people claiming one thing and doing the other. I remember the MCP rants a generation or two back but think it very unjust to visit supposed tit for tat on men who were not alive when MCP was a trope. You cannot call yourself a justice warrior if you are unfair.

  9. To be fair, your stances are radical compared to most of the US population at large, not just this blog. Probably more radical compared to that.

    You still bring up very good points routinely, and I’m happy to see someone trying to smash the Overton Window even if I don’t fully agree.

  10. Jvb

    Stop making logical arguments that make sense. Women negotiate deals all the time and codicle 3b stroke 2.5 in those negoiated agreements gives them the absolute right to change thier minds as the situation exists.

    All sarcasm aside you broke the issue down exactly as it is.

    My initial comment was semi-sarcastic such that in order for Rapinoe, et al to prove the point that they are performing essentially the same work for less pay they would have to play in the league in which males play or allow males to compete for slots on women’s teams. To do otherwise would allow every other soccor league to be justified in demanding equivalent pay.

    In short, I want to give these ladies their Pyrhic victory.

  11. Wow. That player of color standing in the middle sporting a Mohawk is a woman? I thought some guy claiming to be a woman had been phot-shopped into a joke photo.

  12. They can fast-track a program whereby they are all replaced by women who used to be men, and the performance and pay subsequently increase. Problem solved.

    • I typed something very similar to that a couple hours back, then chickened out from hitting the post button. I’m glad you didn’t, because I totally agree. It just takes 25 or 30 young men – all soccer lovers – to decide they want to become women, and Rapinoe’s frustration wont matter…she and her teammates will be looking for new jobs.

      Be careful what you wish for…

Leave a Reply to Alex Cancel reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.