Who’s oppressing who?

One of Canada’s leading newspaper columnists takes on the ideology of feminism.

In its earliest and most benign form – the political campaign to achieve equality under the law and equality in economic opportunities – feminism was a necessary and welcome reform movement. No rational person could be less than delighted to see barriers to a full range of educational and career options for women fall by the wayside.

The feminism I take exception to today is not the mild and blameless right of a woman to self-actualize that all women absorb by osmosis from the cultural air we breathe, but the radical ideology that has come to dominate the movement’s academic and institutional elites over the last 40 years.

This is an ideology that sees the relations between the sexes as a never-ending antagonistic power struggle, with women as eternal victims and men as eternal oppressors. It is an ideology that explains away the moral failings of women as the fault of a patriarchal "system", but holds men responsible for their actions. And most important, it is an ideology that shortchanges children by privileging the rights and importance to children of mothers over fathers.

That kind of feminism is so deeply entrenched in our society’s cultural elites and the institutions they dominate -- really it is the defining ideology of our era -- that whether she wants to or not, no thinking woman can escape the necessity of negotiating some kind of relationship with its claims.

However intellectually objective we all try to be, each of us brings our own particular life experiences to the decision of what kind of relationship that will be, and I am no different.

So for full disclosure: I brought two relevant pieces of personal history to the table. The first is that I am the daughter -- one of three -- of a charismatic, entrepreneurial, risk-taking father. Having known the privations of extreme poverty in his youth, he was so obsessed with providing economic security for his family that he literally worked himself to a premature death.

Because he was a hero to me, I am well disposed toward the men I meet, unless I am shown good reason not to be, and as a result there are many wonderful men in my life, not least my husband of 44 years and my son and son-in-law, both supportive, loving husbands of high-achieving women and engaged, beloved fathers of two daughters each.

Everything in my experience with men points to the conclusion that different cultural values around relations between the sexes produce different outcomes. Normal, psychologically healthy men, raised in a society respectful of women, as Canada’s heritage culture is, are governed in their relations with women by the instinct to protect them, not to hurt them.

The second element I bring to the subject is the fact that I am a Jew, and grew up at a moment of expanding acceptance of Jews as social equals, a direct result of the world’s sympathy for Jews following the Holocaust.

Because of my people’s unique history, I am instinctively wary of any group – whether a race, an ethnic group, a religion or a sex - that plays a dualistic hand, scapegoating an entire group to explain the unachieved goals of its own members. For a scapegoating ideology always ends in grievance-collecting and a conspiracy theory of history. My people has been unusually vulnerable to conspiracy theory evils over the centuries. It is presently in the midst of battling a particularly destructive and existentially threatening one.

Virtually all Arab and many other Muslim nations rely on Jew hatred to externalize an explanation for their own failures. It works very well. The world has not seen such a widespread and virulent strain of anti-Semitism dominating an entire region since the Nazi era. So I can say with the conviction bred of close scrutiny that I have no use for blame-laying ideologies of any kind.

The time and place in which I grew up was friendly to intellectual diversity, friendly to Israel and becoming very friendly to women. The time and place I inhabit today is unfriendly to intellectual diversity, very unfriendly to Israel, not so friendly to heterosexual men, but extraordinarily friendly to women. These are some of the themes I have lived, and now they are the themes I write about.

I started writing intermittently for the National Post in 2000, and on a weekly basis in 2003. For the first several years I wrote frequently about "bad girl culture": a column on children’s hookerwear – little girls dressing like Vegas show girls with the complicity and even active encouragement of their mothers; then one on young women at Ivy League universities starting porn magazines; and a few about the demeaning custom of "hooking up": guilt-free promiscuity with no consequences, or rather none admitted.

I argued that what began for women as sexual liberation had degenerated into irresponsible, intimacy-anaesthetizing, sexual libertinism, an unhealthy trend for women and for society.

In its most delusional form, I cited what I considered a perfect media representation of the phenomenon: the 2001 movie Bridget Jones’s Diary. This was supposedly an update of Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen’s classic novel of a meeting of true minds. In the novel the dignified and witty Elizabeth Bennet captures the heart of the upright and gallant Mr Darcy through her strong character, integrity and intelligence.

In the movie version Elizabeth has morphed into the ditzy Bridget Jones, an impulsive, chain-smoking slob of no discernible wit or understanding of human nature, entirely focused on sex, and available to any good-looking man who crosses her path without regard to his character. She is cute and sexy, nothing else.

Strangely, the modern Mr Darcy character with whom Bridget ends up -- completely unrealistically, of course because in real life such a man would never take her seriously -- is in every way a faithful recreation of the original, an intelligent, refined man of taste, discernment and sexual restraint. My conclusion: "Bridget Jones’ and Mark Darcy’s screen characters illuminate a curious postmodern gender disparity in moral standards… For the gentleman is a gentleman still, but the lady has become a tramp."

I moved on from there to the dramatic demographic consequences feminism has had on society. As a result of feminists’ promotion of career equity with men and unrestrained sexual experimentation over early and faithful commitment, women are having fewer children later, and many are having none. Consequently, birthrates are down in all western countries, in many below the replacement levels. Canada’s current fertility rate is 1.54 per woman, behind one-child China’s 1.7.

Sadly, many women realize they want to have children, but too late. They were not warned by their Women’s Studies teachers or by feminist commentators that fertility peaks by age 25, or that late pregnancies carry elevated risks, or that induced abortions pose a risk of pre-term delivery in future pregnancies.

Abortion is now such a commonplace here that it is used as a backup form of birth control. Abortions in Quebec have doubled in the last 10 years: in 1998 16 percent of pregnancies resulted in abortion. Today 30 percent do. You don’t have to be a religious Christian to find that statistic disturbing.

All of these realities are directly traceable to feminist doctrine. Feminists’ original goal may not have been the intention to preside over the actual demographic decline of western civilization. Their goal was to empower women. But as the old saying goes, when you are up to your neck in alligators, it’s difficult to remember that your original intention was to drain the swamp.

I then turned my attention to the negative and far-ranging effects, of feminism on men. Misandry, which is the female equivalent of misogyny (misanthropy is a hatred of humankind), is now entrenched in our public discourse, our education system and social services. Misandry flies beneath most people’s radar, because we have become compliant in the acceptance of theories that have nothing to do with reality, and compliant in the speech codes that accompany that tendency.

Denigration of men in ways both casual and formal are a commonplace in society. Last Christmas I saw an advertisement for a butcher block knife holder in the shape of a man. The slot for the largest knife was placed in his groin. Hilarious? Imagine a knifeholder in the shape of a woman and a knife slot at the vagina. Hilarious? Not so much. Once you become aware of the phenomenon, you will see it everywhere, trust me.

For overt misandry, one has only to survey the industry around domestic violence. You could be forgiven for thinking that domestic violence is a one-way street, for that is certainly the impression one has from the fact that there are innumerable tax-funded shelters for abused women, none for abused men, unlimited funds for campaigns to raise consciousness around abused women, none for abused men. There is not a single social services agency or charity in Canada advertising "family services" that offers counseling, shelter or legal services for men who have been physically abused by women.

When angry feminists adduce their mantra that only men are inherently violent and that women use violence only in self-defense, I bring up a theme that is forbidden to discussion in women’s shelters: how is it then that partner violence amongst lesbians is significantly higher than amongst heterosexual partnerships?

How is it that children are far, far more likely to be physically abused by their mothers than their fathers? And when they are, how can we justify a woman’s right to take her children to a shelter to escape a violent husband when there is no shelter in the country that will accept a father with children fleeing an abusive mother?

Finally I want to talk about the implosion of the traditional family, which can be directly traced to feminism’s repudiation of normative marriage and the role of fathers as vital to a child’s psychological well-being. In June 2006 I wrote about the imbalance, in women’s favour, in the family law system: 90 per cent of contested custody suits end in sole custody awarded to the mother. Such a skewed percentage is unthinkable in any other branch of law.

The family law system is now systemically colonized by radical feminists. Their goal is the incremental legal eclipse of men's influence over women's spheres of "identity" interests, which includes children. To that end the custody issue has become a front line in the gender wars, supported by all feminist academics and institutional elites, by supine cabinet ministers and by feminist judges.

To illustrate with just a few examples:

• Supreme Court of Canada chief justice Beverley McLachlin: "We have to be pro-active in rearranging the Canadian family"
• Former justice minister Martin Cauchon: "Men have no rights, only responsibilities"
• Feminist psychologist Peter Jaffe, a social-context educator of family court judges: "[J]oint custody is an attempt of males to continue dominance over females"
• And most egregiously this from the National Association of Women and the Law: "Courts may treat parents unequally and deny them basic civil liberties and rights, as long as their motives are good".

Here we are truly in George Orwell country. In simple words this statement means "The end justifies the means" and there is not a totalitarian regime in the world that does not espouse that exact excuse for their denial of rights to their citizens. In our courts the "good" that motivates them is supposedly the child’s "best interests" but in fact it is virtually always the mother’s happiness. This is not justice.

Misandry in family law arises from an ideology that views children as the property of women, even though many peer-reviewed studies show children want and need both parents, and no studies show sole parenting by a mother serves children's best interests. This ideology is instilled in judges during training sessions featuring feminism-driven materials, and subsequently often plays out as unaccountable kangaroo courts.

The result is that an adversarial mother who initiates a divorce against the will of the father --however indifferent her parenting skills, however superb his - and even if the children spend their days with nannies or day care workers --pretty well has a lock on sole custody of the children.

If she makes a false allegation of abuse in order to have him barred from the house -– this happens regularly; any unsubstantiated claim of abuse or even voicing her fear of abuse by a woman will be acted upon instantly by the police and the courts with no recourse for the man – or denies rightful access to the father, she will never be punished at all.

Conversely, if he withholds support money, even if he has lost his job and has no other means of paying, he will be criminalised: His picture as a "deadbeat dad" may appear on government-sanctioned internet sites, and if he goes to jail, as is likely, he will serve a longer sentence than cocaine dealers.

In the days when children belonged to both their parents, it used to be said that children were "hostages to fortune." Today they are hostages to feminism and the state.

And yet every credible sociological study on record demonstrates without ambiguity that if there is a single sure indicator for success in adulthood, it is the presence of a father in a child’s life from the time he or she is old enough to negotiate a path through the world beyond her doorstep. If there is a sure indicator of failure – dropping out, drugs, promiscuity, crime – it is not poverty, it is fatherlessness in later childhood and adolescence.

There is a Yiddish expression my mother used to invoke with a philosophical sigh, "der reidele dreht sich" – the wheel turns. A hundred years ago, it was homosexual love that dared not speak its name. Today homosexual love roars, and it is manliness that whispers in the shadows.

Goethe said: "All theory is grey, but green springs the golden tree of life." The time for zero-sum theories – if your sex wins, mine loses – is past. Men’s voices needn’t be silenced for women’s to be heard. We need more conversation, less monologue. Only one voice should be privileged by everyone: the still, small voice of conscience. Conscience leads away from sexism and toward humanism. Humanism leads to mutual respect and trust between the sexes. And collaboration between the sexes leads to the "golden tree of life" we should all be striving toward – a healthy society.

Comment (93) | Email | Print | del.icio.us | Technorati | digg

Comments (93)

Yves Pageau said...

In 1905 France voted a law déclaring the separation between Churches and state. I wished we would do likewise by declaring separation between feminism and government. It would make things a lot easier for everyone including feminism.

I still can’t conceive why Québec’s policy regarding equality between women and men is under the jurisdiction of le Conseil du statut de la femme. How come no one has yet outlined theabsurdity of this oddity. Shouldn’t equality be symetrical? What are we talking about anyways? When they say equality I hear supremacy.

Canada | Saturday, 5 April 2008 at 9:46 am

angela shanahan said...

Yeah Yeah ---all true . But i have been saying it for more thirteen years here in Australia , firstly as columnist for The Australian then for various other papers and now back at the Aus- and I am derided and belittled every time i say it. There are hardly any women in australia who have the wit to see what post ww2 feminism really is. It is the bleatings of a priviliged group of spoilt suburbanites , who having nothing to complain about , manufactured soemthing, a sort of pseudo ideology that forced itself into the public service and academic world and providing jobs for the girls.if you are not one of those girls, you’reout.

Not even the younger pro life feminists are willing to give feminism the flick and they still try and confront them with all their ideological gobbledygook, instead of dropping the term and just carrying on using tried and true practical and philosophical arguments. That is because these younger women have actually been brainwashed in their school and dumbed down tertiary education and don’t know anyother way of confronting the feminazis except as feminists themselves. oh well back to the drawing board. A

Australia | Saturday, 5 April 2008 at 1:41 pm

Barry said...

Thank goodness! A clear voice of reason in the noise of political correctness!  A thousand men could have said the same, yet we wouldn’t be heard, thank you !

Canada | Saturday, 5 April 2008 at 2:28 pm

Eric Tarkington said...

The truth is that life very often hurts.  The success of feminism in pointing out legitimate inequities has led to a runaway blame effect, in which men are the source of every hurt that a woman can have.  It’s far too easy to pander to this sense of grievance.  It is also far too easy for men to accept collective guilt and punishment out of protectiveness toward women.  Tragic is an inadequate word for the suffering that irrational fears and noble impulses have led us to.  We have a sort of genetic disorder in our ideas, so that we can no longer find personal fulfillment or form the families that are every child’s birthright.

Barbara Kay is bringing a healing perspective.  The wise course is to trust each other and find salvation in each other in the face of life’s troubles, and not to give up on each other too soon.  Sadly, the aura of depravity that we have built up around men leads women to drop decent men when the going inevitably gets rough, leaving them with nothing to treasure but their grievances, and with troubled children in search of their lost or diminished fathers.

For lack of better insights, we follow an entrenched feminism that very few actually believe in.  We have built many harmful mechanisms into society, and it will be hard work to clear them away, but as they were installed by troubled thinking they can be replaced by wisdom.  Kay’s perspective is both more realistic and more constructive than what many of us have been taught.  I hope that many can hear.

-Eric

United States | Saturday, 5 April 2008 at 3:00 pm

JShorttt said...

Your writings illustrate that yours seems to be a voice of reason in an otherwise unreasonable and intolerant society.  Tragically, zero tolerance is fast becoming the norm for just about every issue in our society. Dialog between people is being replaced with lecturing and dictation. Instruments of ‘The System’ readily admit that ‘The System’ is flawed and perverted. However no one will or is interested in stepping up to try repairing the damage done. Sadly there are either few voices of reason out there or the voices of reason are being drowned out by the clamor of the extremists. What’s worse and becoming more apparent is that public apathy and willful ignorance runs rampant in our society, allowing the extremist viewpoints to flourish.  Perhaps it’s a combination of the above. Ms. Barbara Kay, after reading a number of your articles, I have come to admire and respect your convictions and values. Please continue to be the voice of reason.

Canada | Saturday, 5 April 2008 at 11:38 pm

Brent Matthews said...

Excellant insite into what many would consider to be politically incorrect assesment of our socio-political system.  However the politcal incorrectness itself is rooted in the feminist ideology that permeates our system which stops the dialogue we need to bring about healing to our families.  So I give you 5 stars for saying the things that should not be spoken according to the academic elites. 

I would only question your closing assertation reguarding conscience leading toward humanism.  It is in my opinion that humanism of the secular type is what has opened the door for femminism.  I believe it was a type of trojan horse that without any moral absolutes has allowed for the widdling away of the principals that were once held in our christian institutions, that then became public institutions, that then allowed for the removal of the 10 commandments, that most major religions hold to be common to the conscience of all men/women.  To accommodate the few (atheism, secular humanist) at the expence of the many is in opposition to principals of democracy.  So it is my opinion that says, that consciousness leads us to know that we are sinners and need Gods grace and not to humanism.

Canada | Sunday, 6 April 2008 at 12:00 am

Michael Cameron said...

Very well done Barbara! You’re still one of the top five writers in the western world on the subject of -Radical Feminist Idealism, and Gender Bigotry. It’s a sad note to humankind that the more educated these people become the more indoctrinated they become to this ideology.
The people here that I feel sorry for are the fathers that have ended their existence because of being continuously broken down by the elite bigotry that has perpetrated this attack. Their numbers may be as high as three thousand a year. If there is a legacy for these gender carpetbaggers it is the immense cost to society as a whole. Costs that may be too high to have our society continue without radical change.

Canada | Sunday, 6 April 2008 at 12:09 am

gsk said...

Kim: Your clarification of the relationship between Arabs and Jews is technically correct, but missing the point. Yes, all the Children of Abraham are tribally Semites, but there is an enormous disconnect between the children of Isaac (born of Sarah) and the children of Ishmael (born of Hagar). That is the source of the troubles we still face, so many thousands of years later. Thus Islam, which is basically a Christian heresy, in some places gives some deference to other “peoples of the Book” (Jews and Christians), and yet in others is vicious towards Jews, calling them apes and pigs.

The fact that Allah contradicts himself in the text has not been problemmatic for adherents, who say that he has that right, being the almighty. This was the foundational question that Benedict raised at Regensburg: should God exhibit a rational nature? Muslims gave a throaty response to that one.

Thus, today “anti-semitism” is taken to mean “anti-jew” despite the shared heredity between both groups.

United States | Sunday, 6 April 2008 at 1:48 am

David Couillard. said...

Hello Ms. Kay,

Your article is disgusting. It is extremeley disrespectful to the generations of women who fought (and keep fighting) to achieve equality and promote a better society where people will have equal chances regardless of their gender. And No, this goal have not been achieved even in a country like Canada.

Your article is also brutally racist. While you are saying that you are “instinctively wary of any group (...) that plays a dualistic hand”, you allow yourself to stigmatize all of the 250 millions arabs in the world. This is not only wrong but extremeley irresponsible.

Canada | Sunday, 6 April 2008 at 2:34 am

Karol Karolak p.Eng. said...

That was very good article but in my personal opinion Barbara could have given more emphasis to real forces driving destruction of families and destruction of Western civilisation as we know it, namely; unholy alliance between homosexuals, homosexual pedophiles and lesbians.

Father’s movement in heavily infiltrated by homosexual acting as wolves in sheep’s clothing fuelling gender wars, causing internal strife and preventing any meaningful dialogue.  This infiltration is not only limited to men’s movement as lesbians are equally effective in leading women to; slaughter in abortion clinics, sexual abuse in women’s shelters and theft of their infants in maternity wards as homosexuals are leading men to slaughter in family court system.
There is no cure for stupidity, if men allow themselves to be deluded that lesbian are harmless creatures and homosexuals are their best friends that will provide their sons with some early education in sexual diversity that will benefit their boys, if women allow themselves to be deluded that homosexuals are harmless creatures and lesbians are their best advocates, if women allow themselves to be deluded that abortion carries no consequence and monopoly on human reproduction is ultimate weapon in quest of total domination of men than there is very little that we can do.

Canada | Sunday, 6 April 2008 at 3:26 am

One said...

Hi Mrs. Kay,

I wanted to congradulate you for this excellent article.  Your are exceptional.  You are definitely one of the best if not the best columnist on this subject.  You are absolutely 100% right in everything you said in your article and please don’t stop writing and educating our society of feminist brainwashed morons.  Our society has definitely become an anti-men/anti-family feminist hell and only people like you can inspire them and educate them properly on this subject.  It’s really a shame that most of our psychologically castrated men can’t find the courrage to say this.  I believe only women in our society are really allowed to speak on this subject and it is a real shame. 

I just hope this article will be published in the National Post and other important Canadian newspapers along with your others articles which were also excellent.

It would also be very nice if this article was available in french and published in major Quebec french newspapers for our french speaking feminist brainwashed morons in Quebec too…

In my opnion, the mass medias and the politicians are really the ones which are responsible for this mess and this war against men, fathers and boys.

Please excuse my agressive tone here but I really had enough of this crazy society and anti-male war…

Canada | Sunday, 6 April 2008 at 5:10 am

Francisco J. said...

Brilliant article! Here in Spain this is just the situation. The sentence “Men have no rights, only responsibilities” would be a good overview.
Imagine, here in Spain if one has a problem with your wife you will become poor immediately (although it was not your fault). Women even blackmail men, they abuse because if men do not obey they will lose his flat, his family, and even one have to pass a salary to his wife! There are a lot that after divorce really become poor!
So, who’s oppressing who?

Spain | Sunday, 6 April 2008 at 9:43 am

Karol Karolak p.Eng. said...

We must not speak ill about sexual deviants in Canada.

Ordinary people around the World have no idea what kind of BS we have to put up with in Canada; heterosexual men are being convicted of “exposing” women to “HIV virus” and get sentenced to; 4-1/2, 6 and 18 years in jail.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=2f6be8d9-ae84-42cd-bb59-dc875538f6fd&k=78919

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070226.wsmith0226/BNStory/National/home

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/410303

Just one homosexual was ever convicted of “exposing” another man to “HIV virus” in Canada and got sentenced to 8 months in jail. He was hailed as a Martyr of homosexual cause. 

http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=1&STORY_ID=4565&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=2

Just two woman were ever convicted of exposing a men to “HIV virus” in Canada and were sentenced to a year of house arrest.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/09/murphy-sentence051209.html

Funny thing is “HIV virus” does not exist, it was never isolated as such. AIDS is a result of prolonged drug use or long term exposure benzene (most street drugs are based on benzene), poor nutrition and risky lifestyle (high viral load due to poor hygiene and infections due to risky sex).

http://aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm
http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.php
http://aras.ab.ca/transmission-MSM.html

Canadian men do not believe in conspiracies while homosexuals are laughing getting government subsidies for their drug habits (cure for AIDS research grants), women are laughing getting exclusive possession of family residences, collecting spousal support, child support and extraordinary expenses, homosexual and lesbians lawyers representing Canadian women are laughing collecting legal costs(to be paid by men). Anything goes in Canadian Family Courts during divorce proceedings presided over by homosexuals and lesbians disguised as judges.

-- | Sunday, 6 April 2008 at 11:50 am

Clare Cannon said...

Well said.

Humanism is the key, because a scarred past doesn’t bar the way to a better future, it makes us more sensitive to the things that will bring it about.

Teaching design students in an unashamedly feminist department at a Melbourne university I discovered how much students wanted to find a way forward: you can deconstruct, critically theorise and hunt for victims of the past until you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t make you any happier about facing the present.

Humanism: respect, understanding, empathy and looking for needs one can respond to rather than victims one can feel miserable for offers a much more attractive panorama.

Australia | Sunday, 6 April 2008 at 11:54 am

Ken said...

No man today should father children because they are too venerable to the whims of the mother. If a man knew what was in store for them once they had children they would never get married. Everyone who gets married does so thinking “this if for life”. Too bad that is not the facts but is actually fiction. Once a young man learns the rules that are in place and how the government will take over his life once he is married he has to be a complete fool to marry and have children. There is a huge chance he will work his life and in the end die with less than 10% of what he earned.
Young men, with out being educated to the facts of life, and I don’t mean how babies are born, line up for the firing squad.
Stay single and stay happy. Put your money into investments. Rule is – if something will make you money – buy it. If you want to use it and it doesn’t make you money – rent it.
Bad decisions and bad investments will ruin you.

Australia | Sunday, 6 April 2008 at 12:40 pm

Page 2 of 7 :  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »

New comment

Name:

Email:

Location: (please select a country) none United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

URL:

0/2000

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Type the characters you see in the image below:

+ terms & conditions - terms & conditions

Comments on MercatorNet are moderated. They should be brief, preferably no more than 300 words. Messages that abuse others, have objectionable content, or contain commercial content or links will not be displayed. Comments which are thematically repetitive will not necessarily be displayed. Comments may be edited lightly for grammar, spelling and length.