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)

James Efekodo said...

The writer, Barbara Kay, has hit the nail on the head.  I had always suspected that there was a hidden injustice in the courts granting automatic custody of children to their mothers in nearly all cases of divorce. I had always suspected that some women hide under the feminist movement to avoid the responsibilty of rearing children. I had always feared that unless this strange and un-Godly trend of women claiming equality with men, irrespective of the different roles each is designed to play by nature being taken into consideration, we might run into serious trouble eventually. The population crisis in the west is a case in point.
In Nigeria, though the feminist movement has not taken roots, we already have trouble with ‘affluent’ single mothers who having kicked out their husbands now dominate the lives of their adolescent children much to the chagrin of the boys in particular. I pray that we continue to remain ‘unprogressive’ for a few more generations. Thanks for a very good write up.
Jim.

Nigeria | Tuesday, 8 April 2008 at 1:26 am

Denis said...

Feminism certainly brought us all this nightmare. But keep in mind that in many cases it was male politicians, afraid to anger the female vote (more than the male vote anyways) that has caused all the laws to be passed without objection-laws that do great harm to successive generations of men and boys. The women went along with the many special rights, advantages, privileges bestowed upon them. Many men stayed silent for too long. The first half of feminism has brought great harm to males. The second half will bring great harm to females. Displacing men from society will have long term damaging consequences for everyone-women included.

Here is what feminism has believed about marriage, family, men/fathers:

” How will the family unit be destroyed? …[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.”
In “Female Liberation” - Roxanne Dunbarr

“The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together…. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the breakup of families now is an objectively revolutionary process…. No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children….”
“Functions of the Family,” WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 - Linda Gordon

“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”
From Sisterhood Is Powerful, (ed), 1970, p. 537 - Robin Morgan

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.”
Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students - Catherine Comin

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.”
Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.) - Marilyn French

United States | Tuesday, 8 April 2008 at 3:11 am

Peter. said...

“der reidele dreht sich” – the wheel turns.

Before reading this article I have said several times, extremism creates it’s own antithesis.  And history has clearly demonstrated that when that extremism becomes powerful, is plainly and unequivocally hateful, is built upon a foundation of dishonesty and causes widespread human misery - it always realizes that antithesis.

I feel certain that long before the end of the twenty-first century is upon us, within most, if not all, western societies women will have lost, amongst other things, their right to vote and probably access to all significant fields of further education.

The destructive creed that the women’s movement has undoubtedly metamorphosed into over the past three or four decades, under the banner of feminism, will undoubtedly take the West to a political and social destination that will not only witness the end of the crime against humanity that the insane zealotry of modern feminism has certainly become, but also the complete loss of everything that the women’s movement had striven to achieve during the early years of it’s own political and social campaigning.  But that is the outcome of all powerful extremism - whether it be represented by Hitler, Stalin, Dworkin/Greer.

-- | Tuesday, 8 April 2008 at 3:27 am

Anarchiste said...

As if we needed one more proof that men must not reproduce.

This is old news. It has been going on for several decades.
Men must wisen up: vasectomies are free.
I was hoping to see men have that little “fix” in huge numbers.It’s painless, costs nothing and will save you more grief than you can ever imagine. And it will set men free once and for all.

That’s how to stop oppression.

I see no problem with women having their children through some kind of artificial insemination technique.

Canada | Tuesday, 8 April 2008 at 3:45 am

Roman said...

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.

Hey Karol, you forgot to include _heterosexual_ pedophiles in your “analysis”. As we all know, the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are fine, upstanding, _heterosexual_ family men. Any scientific study worth its salt will confirm this. What about bisexuals? Don’t get me started…

What a blessing, that the real world is rendered in many shades of grey…

Canada | Tuesday, 8 April 2008 at 4:15 am

George Piskor said...

Barbara:
A marvellous synthesis of your many articles and penetrating insights. We hope to see a version of this in the National Post...and dare we hope that this synthesis is a subtle indication that a book may be in the offing.

Cheers...George

-- | Tuesday, 8 April 2008 at 6:44 am

Sam said...

I am a white male and at 23 years of age after watching what many of my older brothers and their friends went through with their women I and many of my friends decided to get ‘fixed’. We never want children, not because we dislike children but most of the time they are used as a tool to enslave the male. I don’t need children to make me happy, it’s not like they are going to look after you when you are old anyway. Fact is if you have a lot of money you can pay for good care, something a child cannot and will not do for you.  The only woman in my life I don’t want to lose is my housekeeper, my love interests, can and do, come and go but I will never marry and fall into slavery. Today a man would have to be a fool to have children and or get married. Let the other fools fall into self inflicted slavery, not me.

-- | Tuesday, 8 April 2008 at 9:35 am

Karol Karolak p.Eng. said...

Roman, I just hate to burst your bubble but one of your homosexual friends Justice Joseph Quinn, of Superior Court, in Windsor Ontario just SENTENCED ONTARIO MAN TO 18 YEARS IN JAIL FOR SPREADING “HIV VIRUS” THAT DOES NOT EXIST. He is the same judge who freed woman who killed a man.
http://www.equaljustice.ca/cgi-bin/forum.cgi/noframes/read/11162

Here is a real reason why:
As result of using; street drugs, poppers and practicing sodomy homosexuals develop medical condition called AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). Instead of addressing real causes of AIDS they came up with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) virus that does not exist.

Homosexuals and big pharma sold this HIV scam to governments around the World in order to; organise all homosexuals around common threat, generate funding for bogus research and drugs that would allegedly cure it. They also tried to sell it to African governments as many Africans develop AIDS like symptoms due to malnutrition. They got booted out of Africa as it turned out that it is not AIDS that kills Africans but drugs used to allegedly combat HIV virus kill Africans.

Wheels are falling off their “HIV virus” wagon, Harper’s government refused to provide funding for HIV research and Harper ignored AIDS World Conference held in Toronto. Now homosexuals and their friends in judiciary are trying to suck Conservative government into their scam by jailing men for allegedly spreading HIV virus that does not exist in hopes that they will force hands of Conservative government to stand by judicial decisions already made by officially confirming “existence of HIV virus” and a need to protect society from it. If they accomplish that task they will have it made as Conservative government as active partner in jailing innocent people will be left with the choice of keeping alive a lie about HIV virus and providing funding for HIV research and AIDS treatment or paying compensation to victims of wrongful convictions.

Canada | Tuesday, 8 April 2008 at 10:24 am

John Thomas said...

I think Barbara Kay has it right via her Yiddish saying, the wheel turns. It is very much the case that history is filled with powerful actions and reactions. What we see now (in feminism, and she suggests the example of the gay power movement)is a vast reaction to decades of women being mistreated; but equally, the things she describes will themselves produce a masssive reaction, in the not-too-distant future (but after our time, probably). The same with “liberal” judges: they are a cause of much that is wrong in our society - but this is just a big reacion to the decades (centuries?) when judges were repressive upholders of the power of the state and the wealthy - but again, there will be another reaction, in time. Thus (in Brtain at least) it is indisputable that the law, now, favours the perpetrators over the victims; but it will not always be so. The wheel that goes around, comes around. Splendid article, yes.

-- | Wednesday, 9 April 2008 at 2:19 am

Jerry Pasternak said...

Well written! Great article that just feels right. Radical feminism creates battles between the sexes whereas humanism tries to resolve issues between the sexes.

Canada | Wednesday, 9 April 2008 at 6:13 am

georgette said...

Bravo for the critique of feminism.  It has always amazed me that sophistry can make so much headway without encountering criticism.  For the sake of our daughters, and our sons, there needs to be some intellectual rigor in re-examining the erroneous thinking of the past 40 years.  Bravo for having the courage to take on the activists and demanding an accounting!  Don’t let the bullies get you down!

Canada | Wednesday, 9 April 2008 at 8:58 am

Harebell said...

you are wrong on so many levels.
I’ve addressed some of your statements at my site.
Events yesterday in BC only add to the errors in your arguments

Canada | Wednesday, 9 April 2008 at 2:29 pm

Joi said...

Wow!  This article really tells it like it is, and pulls no punches. Everything she wrote was 100% accurate.

Men also have no reproductive rights what-so-ever, and women are the sole arbiters of reproduction.

United States | Thursday, 10 April 2008 at 9:01 am

Angelina Steenstra said...

Having just read Ms Kay’s article I want to applaud and say thank you. Having been seduced by the feminist agenda and scarred, literally and figuratively by its false promises to the point of losing three children before birth to an abortion, abortifacient contraception and an ectopic pregnancy due to scar tissue from a sexually transmitted disease I am deeply grateful for this honest appraisal of the fruits of false feminism.

What is so disturbing is that the young are victimized by this ideology and robbed of the rich and true meaning of what it means to be woman or man. Sadly what I have lost at the hands of the false prophets can not be restored. I live with the consequences, forgiving my elders who sold this legacy to me under the guise of liberation. Taught to reject and disrespect my body and myself I made choices that closed the door to life and thus to genealogies.

All in the name of feminism I unwittingly contributed to the demographic winter and the terrible loss of so much life, love, and joy. No family, but not by choice, but by indoctrination! It is time to blow the whistle and keep blowing it until every radical feminist lie is exposed and brought low. Fortunately I have moved on and am involved in doing just that by promoting a true feminism that upholds the dignity of the human person. Thank you for speaking the truth.

Cape Verde | Thursday, 10 April 2008 at 4:08 pm

Watchman Klees said...

She’s a nut. But then a much larger portion of society is completely lost to begin with so,… no one seems to notice.

Canada | Thursday, 10 April 2008 at 10:29 pm

Page 4 of 7 : « First  <  2 3 4 5 6 >  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.