Blog of Feminist Activism

The feminist activism of charliegrrl and co

The Daily Star IS Pornographic

Posted by charliegrrl on July 22, 2007

The Daily Star is a national daily newspaper, which is sexist, includes topless photos of women on Page 3 and most often a near naked woman on the front cover. Not the sort of newspaper which is work friendly…right..?

Up until a few months ago, I worked for the Dept. of Work and Pensions. When I first started, I received excellent training on diversity and equality, so I felt optimistic that I had found an employer that takes gender equality seriously. So, in my first week of training, when I saw a male security guard reading The Daily Star at reception, I thought this must be a one-off and that if I complained it would be sorted straight away. I thought that the DWP would sympathise that it is not acceptable that I should have to walk past topless and near-naked photos of women on my way into work. Well…you’d think so. Instead this was the beginning of a 10 month battle with the DWP against sexist imagery in my workplace.

I soon realised that it is common for men to read The Daily Star in work. I could not understand why these men felt it was acceptable to bring into work and read openly a newspaper that not only has topless photos of women on Page 3, but has also near naked photos of women on the front cover. I thought this must be a sign of the times, that pornographic imagery is so normalised that men don’t consider anything wrong in looking at topless women in the office. My daily experience of walking in and out of work was seeing pornographic imagery of women. Obviously this made me feel fustrated and angry.

So I complained to the people in charge of Diversity at our centre. They were sympathetic and said it would stop. But it didn’t, even after two more complaints. So I made a formal grievance. My (male) team leader and my (female) union rep said that The Daily Star is a national newspaper so they can’t do much about it. It isn’t top shelf pornography so what’s the big deal, they implied..? To which I said, The Sport isn’t a top shelf publication either, but is it acceptable to bring that into work? In meetings with them, I ensured I had a copy of The Daily Star with me as an example. When I actually confronted them with the images, they were obviously uncomfortable and seemed to understand my view. I argued that the DWP should ban The Daily Star from work premises because it is sexist and pornographic. If any colleagues looked at similar images on the internet, this would be an act of misconduct; if any colleagues pinned these up on their wall, this would be considered sexual harrassment. So the same goes for newspapers. Women at work should not have to put up with daily seeing pornographic imagery on people’s desks. I considered this to be a form of sexual harrassment, as it made my workplace uncomfortable for me as a woman. If the DWP had a commitment to the Gender Equality Duty, they would ban sexist imagery from the workplace.

Despite my objections, it still carried on. I felt like my complaints were landing on deaf ears. I felt like they were not listening to me when I told them how such sexist imagery makes me feel, but instead telling me I shouldn’t have a problem with it. I even sought advice from the EOC, who said that I would find it hard to prove that The Daily Star is sexist… The icing on the cake was when the new boy sat on the desk next to me. He would bring in The Daily Star everyday and leave it open on his desk and read it in his lunch break. One day I had had enough, and I told him, ‘Can you please put away that newspaper as I do not wish to see topless photos of women when I come into work’. He looked at the paper and made an embarrassed laugh, like he had just realised how inappropriate the images are. I complained to my line manager again. It took him about two weeks to acknowledge my complaint and finally tell the new boy not to leave The Daily Star on his desk or read it near me.

Meanwhile, the security guards continued to read the paper at reception. One day, I got pissed off. I was standing at reception, where I saw The Daily Star lying open, so I took it and binned it. About an hour later I was called into a room with the centre manager. She told me I was caught on CCTV taking the newspaper. I explained to her my months of complaints. She was sympathetic but had to issue me with a formal warning meeting. She was advised by her seniors to give me a warning for gross misconduct for theft. After a meeting with my manager and my union, she decided not to issue me with a formal warning. I got away with no formal action against me, only because I had a good union rep and a sympathetic manager.

Soon after, the security guards stopped reading The Daily Star and a message was sent out through a newsletter to be considerate when reading the paper. So I got the result I wanted but only after having broken the rules.

All this left me feeling so upset with the DWP, I was on the verge of quitting my job. I had to go through formal meetings with the threat of misconduct action against me, all because from fustration I removed a sexist newspaper. I was so disappointed, I couldn’t understand why it was so hard to get the DWP to act upon sexism in the workplace? I felt I could not stay in a department that, despite having indepth diversity and equality policies, was not committed to gender equality at grassroots.

Object are calling on Marks and Spencers to stop selling The Daily Star. They already refuse to sell lads mags, but still sell The Daily Star. Marks and Spencer wrote an encouraging letter to Object implying that they can understand why The Daily Star could be considered inappropriate, but they haven’t had people complain about it. So, that’s where we come in. If you would like to be able to buy a newspaper from a shop wherein there is no visible pornographic imagery of women, then please send a letter or email to Marks and Spencer to make this happen, by calling for them to stop selling The Daily Star. For a template letter and more info visit Object


chairman@marks-and-spencer.com

Matt Rogers
CEO’s Office
Marks and Spencer
Retail Customer Services
Chester Business Park
Wrexham Rd
Chester CH4 9GA

Advertisements

35 Responses to “The Daily Star IS Pornographic”

  1. Sorry you had to go through so much faff Charlie to have recognised what is fairly straight forward. I [also] don’t want to be sat next to or even in close proximity to a man reading the Star whether it be on the bus / train / or at work. I seriously fail to understand how a Governmental establishment such as the DWP cannot see the harm that may be caused by turning a blind eye to sexism and the comfort of their female employees. It’s interesting but I know many females of all ages (from eighteen and up) that are royally sick and tired of sexist imagery (including page three) even though they do not I.D. as feminists. How can tolerance to the Daily Star in the workplace be promoting equal opportunity when these publications blatantly promote that one sex is inferior to the other in a variety of attributes.

    Anyway – well done for sticking to your truth and I’m writing to M&S the noo.

  2. Unfortunately your case Charlie is not an isolated one (as you know). Racism and homophobia are rightly seen as hate crimes yet sexist and blatantly degrading pornographic papers all of which depict women as dehumanised sex machines but at the same time masquerade as ‘mainstream newspapers’ are not perceived as even a problem let alone outright promotion and acceptance of women-hatred and contempt. No matter how many diversity and gender equality policies are written, promoted and published nothing will change unless those men and women who have the power and authority actually implement and enforce these policies.

    Such is the widescale acceptance that women unlike men are not human and therefore women and many men too are supposed to like and accept sexualised degrading images of women without making a complaint. Imagine what would happen if images of homosexual males in intimate poses were to be widely displayed in newspapers. There would be widespread protests that although homosexuality is not a crime why should it be promoted so blatantly. Society obviously views women in general as non-human and it is acceptable for this group to be dehumanised, sexually degraded and subject to sexualised cruelty.

  3. MaryTracy9 said

    Wow. Congratulations from the bottom of my heart for having the strenght to carry on despite all the opposition. It’s really amazing that it wouldn’t get through their heads; such is the pornification of our culture that no one notices it.
    Anyway, KUDOS again. It’s thanks to women like you that things get changed.

  4. LH1 said

    HI

    YES I TO WORK FOR DWP AND YES I WORK IN A BUILDING THAT HAS AT LEAST FOUR SECURITY GUARDS THAT ALL READ THE STAR OR SUN. TWO OF THE GUARDS ARE FEMALE!!. THE SECTION I WORK ON HAS AROUND SEVEN STAFF AT LEAST FIVE OPENLY READ OR’SHARE READ’ THE SUN WHICH MORE OFTEN THAN NOT NOW HAS OPENLY PORNOGRAPHIC PICTURES ON THE FRONT COVER AS WELL AS THROUGH OUT IT’S VILE PAGES, (MARKET FORCES!!) OUT OF THE STAFF THAT READ IT TWO ARE AGAIN WOMEN! . AN INCREASING NUMBER OF PEOPLE IT WOULD SEEM REGARD SUCH ‘NEWPAPER’S’ (I USE THE WORD LOOSELY AS I FIND THAT IN TODAY’S EDITORIAL CONTEST THERE IS VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE OF ANY POSITIVE ANTI SEXIST/ANTI MOSOGINISTIC REPORTING I.E ‘FREE’ T.V GUIDES AND SO CALLED ‘WOMENS MAGAZINES’ WHICH AGGRESSIVELY PROMOTE/ENCOURAGE THE ‘IDEAL’ STEREOTYPICAL BODY IMAGE/FASHION!?/LIFESTYLE CHOICES!!!BUT LOOKING INCREASINGLY LIKE PORN)THANKFULLY I DECIDED NOT TO FEED THE MOSOGNY MACHINE SO I DO NOT BUY NEWSPAPER’S, PREFERRRING INTERNET SITES (BBC) OR RADIO AS THEY TEND ON THE WHOLE NOT TO BE DARE I SAY TOO SEXIST/MOSOGINIST CAMPARED TO THE REST. BUT I’M OFF TRACK; YES THE WORK PLACE HAS BECOME A SEXIST ZONE WERE WOMEN ARE INCREASINGLY CONFRONTED BY SEXIST/COMODIFIED IMAGES, NOTHING IS OFF BOUNDS AND ITS AGONY, I’VE EVEN HAS TO TACKLE SEVERAL CUSTOMERS OPENLY READING ‘THE SPORT’, WITH THE HELP OF ANOTHER FEMALE COLLEGUE, THE SAID CUSTOMER DIDN’T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE FRONT PAGE PHOTO OF A WOMEN’S ‘CROTCH SHOT’ !!! THIS MAKES ME SO SICK AND I HAVE TO DEAL WITH FEELING SO VIOLATED). MY PERSONAL THOUGHS ARE
    THAT I FEEL SO ALONE WITH IT AND I AM DEEPLY GLAD THAT THERE ARE WEBSITES LIKE THIS WERE I CAN NOW AFTER 21 YEARS OF FEELING OPPRESSED NOW BEGIN TO FEEL NOT SO ALONE AND IN PAIN. I COULD WRITE ON BUT THIS IS A RELATIVELY NEW EXPERIENCE FOR ME AND I AM STILL RESEARCHING AND FINDING MY VOICE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY GETTING USE TO HEARING IT!!!. yES I TOO WILL COMPLAIN TO DWP AFTER ALL THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE STANDARD BEARER’S IN EQUAL OPPS AND EMPLOYMENT LEGISTATION!!!. PLEASE TAKE CARE AND THANK YOU, YOU HAVE VOICED AN OPIONION THAT HAS EATEN AWAY AT ME FOR YEARS, I TOO MUST TAKE THIS FORWARD. WELL DONE INDEED AND GOOD LUCK IN WHATEVER YOU DECIDE TO DO IN THE FUTURE.

  5. Liz said

    Thanks for sharing Charlie, sorry you’ve been through so much crap to get results. I think most women feel awful when they see the daily star/the sun/daily sport etc, but don’t know what to do about it. I’ve sat near people reading this crap on the tube, in cafes, etc and always move away because I hate coming face to face with such misogyny. The same goes for readers of LMs – my indifference to that person suddenly turns to rage when I realise how misogynist so many men are. As you may know, I mentioned my dad reading the daily mail, and now I’ve resorted to ripping it up whenever I find it in the house. It doesn’t do anything for the general population though! But your action really inspires me to do more 🙂

  6. emma said

    Unfortunately most workplaces have a reactive rather than a proactive culture when it comes to dealing with issues like this, even big government departments like the DWP. This is what the gender equality duty is meant to tackle. And I also know from the experiences of people who work in the equality and diversity field that quite often everyone ignores them when they try to promote equal opportunities – one woman I know who is an equal opportunity officer for a local authority says her colleagues seem to see as just being there to sack people.

    It’s also interesting as you point out that everyone seems to recognise the harm from images on the internet – at my workplace the nuts and zoo websites are banned on the internet, but no one seems to recognise the problems with printed newspapers (no one in my office ever would read Nuts, Zoo or the Star though ‘cos they’re all guardianistas). The new minister for women Harriet Harman is, allegedly, a feminist, so I suggest as many people as possible write to her to ask her to ensure that government departments make it clear to their staff that mags/newspapers showing semi naked women aren’t acceptable.

  7. April said

    Holy cow! Thanks for sharing. My sympathy and solidarity goes out to you.

  8. Charlie, the other posts just made me realise whilst it is important to understand why misogny is ‘invisible’ in the eyes of those in power, still we must challenge such gender blindness. It’s a thankless and demoralising task attempting to challenge such hatred, but you refused to be intimidated and silenced. Apologies for my not recognising your strength and determination in challenging your workplace. I’ve certainly learned something from your stand and that is a refusal to be silenced.

  9. Grace said

    Recently when I was travelling somewhere with some people from work, one of the women that I am quite close to said that she was going to buy The Star but didn’t because of me basically. She said it’s a Sunday tradition of her and her husband to go to the local cafe and meet another couple they’re friends with and split the paper, guys getting the sport section, girls getting the gossip section. My comment that there is prefectly good gossip in the Guardian didn’t seem to wash, but everyone also ignored my comment that it’s pornographic…what a shock. The same woman also said her husband would “batter” her if she had a really high phone bill. I really didn’t know what to do. I know she didn’t mean it literally but still it grated on me.

    I’m sorry that you had to resort to breaking the rules just to get your voice heard, only to finally have some action taken when you were already thinking about quiting anyway. The thing with diversity policies is that for gender diversity, unless it concerns actual verbal or physical sexual harrassment, or childcare provisions, or flexibility due to the increased likelihood of being a carer, they can’t help you much – because sexism doesn’t exist anymore apparently.

    The Star IS sexist – in the way that you have shown which is obvious to us, but also in a way that should make every reader realise it’s sexist if we didn’t live in a sexist society. The Star and other papers pander only to the ‘sexual urges’ of it’s male readers. Why does page 2 not have a naked ‘hunk’ *puke* man staring out at the laydez? Why is there not a Calvin Klein underwear model standing opposite the women who is posed suggestively in kinky underwear on the front page? *Drum roll* because even at this supposedly basic level of human need, only men’s needs are met. If people think that this society is truly equal then men and women should be given the same things (because that is what the majority seem to view equality as, and most people seem to think that women are ‘as bad’ as men, going to see the Chippendales and what not). Of course i’m not saying that I would want to see that, hence the *puke*, but that fact in itself surely proves that such publications ARE sexist, even if it is not the the way that we *enlightened* ones can see it.

  10. polyestergirl said

    Ha ha! It is quite funny you should write about this, but there is a very very simple solution, and that is to bring magazines to work that are of similar content but with semi naked men instead. A good choice is gay mag, The Advocate. Any gay mag is sure to make these chauvinists uncomfortable.

    At uni, I participate in a variety of activities (academic), and am usually confronted with some bogan reading either Zoo or, worse still, FHM. I told the heads of these SOCIAL and CULTURAL awareness activities that these magazines were inappropriate, esp since the programme was dedicated to providing awareness for sexism, hmophobia and racism, in society but esp in the work force. I did not get much support, even though I did in the end snatch a copy from a class “mate” and shoved it under their noses. Alas, it is but a lads mag, a bit of male entertainment, light hearted ( Ahem!).

    So the next day I racked up with The Advocate and other material of similar nature and freely spread out the pages of gratuate shots of semi clad men, er, enloping… It was not recieved all to well from the lads mag fans who asked to put it away as it made them uncomfortable, and it was, it would seem, unappropriate. I felt I had just crossed a mile stone!!!!

    We agreed with the organisers, after a heated discussion together, to not bring ANY material to the group that has the obvious potential to alienate and make any of our fellow human beings uncomfortable.

    Although I was dealing with intelligent young uni students who should have known better, so this perhaps will not be so effective with uneducated cave men in the work force.
    Feministas can only dream!

  11. Slightly baffled said

    Can somebody please enlighten us lurkers as to an elucidation of the “openly pornographic” images that are on the cover of The Daily Star? I can’t honestly remember ever seeing penetration, wide-open vaginas, erect penises etc. on the cover, although I must admit to also being a Guardian man myself…

  12. Andrew said

    charliegrrl, you are a true hero. THanks for persisting, though it had to have been terribly difficult.

  13. CrankyCrone said

    gross misconduct for theft !
    For a 40p ‘newspaper’.

    Sheesh, talk about defending male entitlement to view naked/semi-naked females – to the death. They certainly didn’t blow your actions out of proportion, did they?

    Well done. A small, but hard-fought victory.

  14. Well done Polyestergirl. I did consider bringing in gay magazines to read at my desk, to see what their reaction would be. No doubt they wouldn’t have liked it. Men often feel uncomfortable when they see the naked male body being objectified- but we’re so used to seeing the female body objectified that it is almost seen as natural and harmless. So it’s a good tactic to get men to realise how it makes us feel to see objectified images of women at uni and in our workplace.

    Slightly Baffled, I use the term pornographic to describe sexualised, demeaning and objectified images of women. This ranges from topless photos, Page 3 to soft porn to hardcore porn. The message is still the same with Page 3 women and with women in fully nude porn- that is a degraded, objectified female body that exists solely to sexually service men.

    Cranky Crone, that was what pissed me off the most- a man’s right to read whatever paper he wants, and look and topless photos of women at work is given more importance than a woman’s right not to work in a sexist environment. They told me telling people what newspapers they can’t read at work is censorship. To which I said, can people read BNP literature at work? Can people bring in images that deride lesbian and gay people, disabled people, black people? I say it is being serious about gender equality.

    Slightly off topic but worth mentioning: when I was still at the DWP, a black female colleague worked in a team where one of her colleagues would make racist jokes. She complained to her team leader and she said to her, ‘She isn’t racist, she has black friends’. The racist colleague wasn’t challenged. So in the same way as my experience of sexism was ignored, this woman’s experience of racism was ignored.

  15. hairylesbian said

    Well yup SB – to echo what Charliegrrl said – a biology textbook is not pornographic. Even if it contains a picture of a penis. Pornography is not simply pictures of sexual organs – a film of a baby being born wouldn’t be pornographic either even though you could see a woman’s genitals. Gloria Steinemn pointed out that pornography means literally ‘writing about slavery’. It is the degrading nature of porn, not the explicit nature that is the problem.

  16. Dave said

    If the Daily Star pictures of topless women were stuck on the walls,they would be taken down,so if the DWP truly believes in gender equality between the sexes,any material that is sexually objectifying/degrading to its female employees & causes offence,should not be allowed on the premises.
    If M&S refuses to stock lads mags,then it seems hypocritical to me for them to sell the daily star,i will send them an email & see what happens!!!
    I’m all in favour of porn free premises where you can buy a newspaper or confectionery & not be assaulted by tits & asses!
    It would be good if some newsagents,started to follow M&S example,they may even find their profits increase,due to a broader customer base.

  17. Diana Russell also mentions pornography as a form of sexual harassment.

    “In the US, pornography in the workplace is now considered to be responsible for creating a hostile environment in which women are forced to work. Hence, pornography in this context has been defined as a form of sexual harassment and made illegal as such.
    It seems reasonable to consider porn in settings other than the workplace as sexual harassment as well, eg, in church, in courts, in doctors’ offices, and even in the home”

    As Charlie has pointed out she used the term […] pornographic to describe sexualised, demeaning and objectified images of women. This ranges from topless photos, Page 3 to soft porn to hardcore porn. The message is still the same with Page 3 women and with women in fully nude porn- that is a degraded, objectified female body that exists solely to sexually service men”

    http://www.dianarussell.com/pornography.html

  18. Interesting that two of the three images that Slightly Baffled considers “openly pornographic” depict naked MEN.

  19. hairylesbian said

    Amazingly a man in my workplace complained when a woman came in when she was on maternity leave to sort some admin type stuff out and breast fed her baby in the office! Needless to say he didn’t get anywhere (except told off by a lot of the other people in the office), but it’s incredible that people can and do complain about women feeding their hungry babies, but seem to think it’s ok to have degrading pictures of virtually naked women on display everywhere.

  20. Michelle said

    As you point out, if colleagues are looking at images on the internet akin to those to be found in the Daily Star, that would be grounds for disciplinary action, but because it’s printed on news print and sold with the other newspapers it’s accepted as normal and harmless.

    Infuriating.

  21. euny said

    Direct action has become necessary, and you persevered so strongly, I applaud you. Thank you.

    In sollidarity.

    x

  22. Lola Lyndon said

    Strong arguement. Good for you.

  23. Fanny Blood said

    So if the Daily Star in the workplace is considered sexual harrassment then The Sun is too, right?

    I’m now imagining a world not too far away where this is our reality.

    P.S Hello everyone! Been off the planet for a while!

    x

  24. Yeah, I would say The Sun is unacceptable at work too cos of Page 3- I complained about that too.
    Welcome back Fanny
    x

  25. Lola Lyndon said

    Btw… I want to say that I do not agree that the photograph of the woman in the paper is pornographic. I don’t see naked breasts as being pornography.

    But I do agree with you, very strongly, that this kind of reading material is inappropriate in a workplace and that it is sexual harassment.

  26. polyestergirl said

    Yeesh, I cannot believe people are getting away with eliciting sexist and racist comments and behaviour. I suppose they could argue that they have girlfriends, just as the racist comment maker justified her statements by claiming to have black friends, if you would call someone your friend, who you treasure, but don’t mind debasing, degrading and demeaning them. Oh, what a world, what a world!

    P.S. Slightly Baffled: It is good to see how well you researched you you response, you definition of pornography is a great insight into the knowlegde you and your fellow porn lovers possess. I also find it deeply disturbing that people have become so prone and immune to “basic” pornographic images that there idea of something that is sexually exciting (via the demeaning of women) is so graphic.

  27. LL – “I don’t see naked breasts as being pornography.”
    They are not always – like I don’t think that a picture of a woman breastfeeding or a picture of a breast in an anatomy textbook is pornographic – but women’s bodies as objects for men (which is the case with the newspaper) *is* pornographic.

  28. Fanny Blood said

    I’m now working in a bar/restaurant which supplies The Sun (much to my anger!) and this young guy was in there yesterday who was reading it and he held page 3 up to the 60+ guy next to him and said “that’ll cheer you up”. I said “that’s disgusting” to which he replied “it’s hardly disgusting” to which I said “well it is to me, it’s offensive” to which he said “well I could live without it” and I said “well maybe you could sign a petition against it then?” and he said “well, I wouldn’t go that far”.

    Since reading this thread though Charlie, I am going to be keep bringing up the term ‘sexual harrassment’ when this paper is being read in my view because that sums up exactly how I, and lots of other women feel about this.

  29. Fanny, I’m glad you said something to that guy. Page 3 is so normalised, I think many people accept it and don’t think that it can offend people. I do consider having sexually degrading imagery in my workplace to be sexual harrassment, as it makes my work environment uncomfortable as a woman- I would definitely point it out Fanny.

  30. Ellie said

    It’s really awfull that YOU had to be punished to get some results. Also, the scary thing is these are precisely the places that should be leading the way on the things like the Gender Duty..seems that non-one who actually works for the public sector has a clue about their own obligations to actively end gender discrimination..surely banning porn would be the first thing.. eugh..

  31. Lola Lyndon said

    @ Mermaid

    I can’t agree that kind of ultra-conservative definition of pornography.

    I see a distinction between what can be termed explicit (nudity) and what is pornographic.

    And, I do not think it is necessary that the material be “pornographic” per se in order for it to be viewed as inappropriate for the workplace — that it is inarguably explicit is justification enough.

  32. polyestergirl said

    Pornography is hard to define, but a very general term is that iit is intended to sexually stimulate the viewer. But that is too vulgar a definition. I would probably say it is this case if whatever was on display was also intended to be sold, or if its one soul purpose is to elicit sexual stimulation.

    I agree with Littoralmermaid

  33. Lola Lyndon said

    If you’re going to use penile arousal as a barometer for everything that is pornographic — then everything is pornographic.

  34. Lola Lyndon said

    And… if everything is pornographic, then nothing is pornographic, and the word has lost its meaning.

  35. polyestergirl said

    Lola Lyndon-

    Huh? Neither me nor Littoralmermaid ever suggested that just because a man is aroused by something means that it is pornographic. You have completely missed the point. If the image is INTENDED to incite sexual arousal, whether you like it or not, it is pornography.

    Take Playboy for example. This is a pornographic magazine, as it depicts women in a way that is SUPPOSED to be sexually arousing to the viewer. Those images have one soul purpose. However, there are men who might not find the women sexually arousing at all. That does not make the images any less pornographic. I don’t get turned on by those images, but I still believe that it is pornography.

    If the creater or distributer of the image has intended the image to looked at in a sexual context, it is pornography. Child pornography is intended to excite the viewer. Ofcourse not everyone is aroused by this, because its discusting. BUT IT IS PORNOGRAPHY.

    “If everything is pornographic, then nothing is pornographic, and the word has lost its meaning.” Well, if everything is pornographic, it is because it has intended to be so. It’s meaning may have been “lost” on the viewer, but that does not mean it has an entirely new definition.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: