Is Religion Patriarchal?
By Jay B. Scott
Through the Looking Glass
A scant few years ago, while I was pursuing my degree, I worked in a factory on the production line during summer break. In my department, there was a total of four utilities, including myself, and one line leader; and as should be expected, the leader commanded our break times, or at least was supposed to. But you know what they say about “the best-laid plans.” One of our guys, who liked to wear a T-shirt that displayed the double-meaning title, “Male Rules,” and listed female-subordinating macho-humor statements underneath, nonetheless had a domineering girlfriend from another department that he would heel to like an obedient little puppy. This young lady, who was very petite as well as pretty, would come over and fetch her boy when it was time for her break, regardless of our line leader's plans. And the real kicker was that Fearless Leader also complied, out of mind, as if he had just seen a woman for the very first time. We could have been in a dire emergency requiring all hands, and POOF! - off they would go anyway. Her answer to how she managed this?: “Because I'm a girl.”
Remembering this situation reminds me of one of my favorite sayings: “Everything is just the opposite of what it appears to be.” Of course, this isn't literally so, or else we would begin our lives at a funeral, and come to our bitter end being sucked back inside that womb. However, this idea of turning something around can be applied to our very human impulse to deny and project as a defense and coping mechanism. Let's say that you're a kid, and you really want that piece of candy on the shelf at the corner store across from school. You deny to yourself that if you take it you'll be a low-down thief, because you rationalize that you need it. But since you're not operating in a vacuum, there are plenty of schoolmates hanging around that you'll have to deal with. The answer? - Create a diversion! Yell as loudly as you can, while pointing your finger in the most strategic direction, “Hey everybody! Look over there! Henry's stealing a comic book!” As soon as all your sensationalism-seeking friends turn away from you to your fall guy, you quickly satisfy your lust - er, uh - “need.”
Now, knowing what I've learned about Religion, I like to apply this “opposite of appearances” notion to the Latin form of the word, which is religio. In Latin, we can more clearly see that the word has two parts: “re,” meaning “again,” and “ligio,” meaning “to link.” (You can get a very good mental picture of “ligio” from one of its English derivatives, “ligament.”) So then, Religion is supposed to be about a re-linking, or a re-attachment, to something. But in order to re-link to anything, one must first sever the original link, the original attachment - the umbilical cord! Here again, (fortunately) I am not talking about a literal condition where you walk around on your mother's leash all your life. (Besides, it's too gross thinking about trying to hide that thing under your clothes.) I am, of course, referring to an emotional state which in all my experience has led me to conclude that Religion is not about re-linking, but is really about the opposite: reinforcing the original link!
The Original - and Continuing -- Trinity
With that said, I'd like to introduce you to a recently named - but ages-old - phenomenon known in the field of Structural Family Therapy as the “Emotional Incest Syndrome.” The book by the same name (subtitled What to Do When a Parent's Love Rules Your Life), written by Dr. Patricia Love, begins with its definition:
This book describes a syndrome known as Emotional Incest, a surprisingly common but rarely identified style of parenting in which parents turn to their children, not to their partners, for emotional support. To the casual observer, the parents may appear loving and devoted. They may spend a great deal of time with their children and lavish them with praise and material gifts. But in the final analysis, their love is not a nurturing, giving love - it's an unconscious ploy to satisfy their own unmet needs.
Carl Jung likewise pointed out that too often a mother would transfer her will to, and live her life through, her son. He very aptly called this “The Marriage of Mother and Son”; instead of the two becoming as one, however, they simply remain as one. This article is my effort to show you, Dear Audience, that Religion is the primary (but not only) manifestation of that marriage.
With regard to “The Marriage of Mother and Son,” the British psychiatrist Andrew Stanway reminds us that throughout history, as men have gone off to war, many never returning, mothers have relied on their growing sons to be, effectively, “little men.” The name for this social malady is “Absent Father Syndrome,” and it occurs in all cultures. Even in Thomas Jefferson's ideal agrarian society, the father, though on the premises twenty-four hours a day, still had little contact with his children during their formative years, or up until about six years of age. He was largely out in the field from sunup till sundown, the small children remaining with the mother at the house. And city life has only exacerbated this problem of the absent father. When I lived in the DC metropolitan area during the eighties, the national average workweek for managers was sixty hours, and the average commute time was thirty minutes one way. I can tell you from experience, looking out my Arlington apartment window at I66, stretching southwest from downtown to suburbia, that for large cities the commute time can be long, arduous hours. So then, Absent Father Syndrome has occurred throughout the world and throughout time. However, I assert, it is not because men as fathers are inherently negligent, but because this social pattern has been the accepted and preferred child-rearing arrangement for the past 100,000-plus years of human existence - but why?
The Power and The Gory
This “why” is revealed in the implications of a single word: “POWER!” To begin explaining those implications, I want to show you a couple of tidbits from the 1998 book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge by Edward O. Wilson (“Mr. Sociobiology”): “We know that virtually all of human behavior is transmitted by culture” (126). Wilson goes on to say that:
Certain cultural norms also survive and reproduce better than competing norms, causing culture to evolve in a track parallel to and usually much faster than genetic evolution. The quicker the pace of cultural evolution, the looser the connection between genes and culture, although the connection is never completely broken. Culture allows a rapid adjustment to changes in the environment through finely tuned adaptations invented and transmitted without correspondingly precise genetic prescription. In this respect human beings differ fundamentally from all other animal species. (128)
Putting Wilson's words another way, I like to say that we humans are highly adaptable because we're not bound by the high degree of restricting instincts that automatically guide the other animals. We are highly adaptable because we are largely able to choose our own life-course through learning by trial and error.
However, there is a down side to this trial-and-error learning, and that is because a very appropriate synonym for human error, as it has occurred throughout history, is none other than premature death. And whereas natural death from old age has always been accepted in human culture as normal, premature death has always been seen as tragic (such as death from war). So, since trial-and-error learning comes with such high stakes, the unfortunate side effect is anxiety. And we all know that anxiety produces the snowball effect, leading to more error, which leads to more anxiety, and so on, IF NOT CONTROLLED. Because of this, it becomes paramount for us humans to find the ability, or the power, to control as much of our environment as possible. And, to be sure, the most important part of our environment is people.
Speaking of the attainment of personal power, let me point something out here: the accumulation of personal power is normally not a bad thing. If we are healthy, vigorous humans, we are in fact constantly working on this. For example, I went to college because I had a need to expand my amount of personal power over my environment (the old “How to Win Friends and Influence People” thing).
But we all know from our history lessons that a glut of personal power can make an individual go “bad.” The best example we Americans have is the very reason for the American Revolution and the establishment of the United States of America. In The Declaration of Independence we read: “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [the Colonies] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Another example comes from the Roman Empire at its peak. The rhetorician Seneca once wrote that “ultimate power corrupts ultimately,” and in A History of Rome by Cary and Schullard we read:
At the outset of the reign of Nero, who was but sixteen years of age at his accession, his mother Agrippina became involved in a struggle for the regency with Burrus and the prince's tutor, L. Annaeus Seneca, the foremost man of letters of his day . . . Though Burrus and Seneca owed their advancement to Agrippina, they asserted themselves against her attempt to exercise an undisguised domination in political affairs such as no Roman woman had as yet ventured to claim for herself. . . . Agrippina . . . loved power more than Nero. (358)
This ancient account continues much like the more familiar soap opera intrigues of today; the greed for power always causes the pursuer to do one particular thing: CHEAT! However, the problem with cheating is that it is disruptive of order, and begins a downward spiral away from orderliness, which promotes life and growth, towards disorderliness, which promotes decay and death. And death - premature death - is exactly what happened to Agrippina because she pursued ultimate power. Ultimate power corrupts (decays into death) ultimately.
The Number-one Axiom
Now let's begin to put all of this together to see why Religion cannot actually be patriarchal. When I was still living in Arlington, VA, an acquaintance of mine - a brilliant man by the name of Raymond Skinner - introduced me to a concept that I have since termed the number-one axiom for the entire world and for all time: “Mother gets to the children first!” Every mother that has ever existed has been virtually unchallenged and uninhibited from having direct control and influence over infants and small children. And in Erskine and Moursund's 1998 book Integrative Psychotherapy in Action we read that “Freud, in asserting that the experiences of infancy and early childhood form a foundation upon which the adult personality is based, blazed a trail for later therapists to follow” (40). And I assert that because Mother gets to the children first, it will be to Her that they remain primarily loyal throughout their lives. Consider the one thing that everyone in the world wants: to have as many accepting, devoted, and unquestioning followers as possible. I have already shown that people are the primary part of our environment that we need to control in order to maintain our personal power quota. (In other words, the townsfolk storming your castle door with torches and pitchforks is a bad sign.) Mother gets her loyal followers by default from absent fathers. This has been from the beginning. And over the epochs, our world society has accordingly been shaped and controlled, not by our fall guy the “Patriarchy,” but by Collective Motherhood. It has been a simple matter during child rearing for Mother to reinforce in small male minds that their position in life excludes the raising of small children. (Also forget two lies: the in utero symbiotic relationship formed between mother and child, and the irreplaceable necessity of breast milk which throughout history has been substituted by other nutrients when women found it convenient). The males have always been relinquished to doing the dirty work for Her Majesty the Queen, and have been brainwashed into believing that “it's a man's world,” just so that when the shit hits the fan, the men have to take the blame and responsibility for it.
When I think of Mother's loyal followers, two pictures come to mind. The first is from a famous painting that illustrates the cover of an edition of Dante's Paradiso: Mother Mary, the Queen of Heaven, sits in the center of the Heavenly Rose, surrounded by multitudes of devotees. The second is a photograph of my oldest paternal uncle, his wife, and family. Uncle Hugh, a strong-armed “patriarch” and WWII bomber pilot, nonetheless stands meekly and obscurely in the top-left corner, while his wife Violet, with outstretched arms to proudly display her flock, commands the central position, surrounded by loyal children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
People, forget Wall Street; this is what real power is all about. I have a copy of a poster hanging on my wall that I originally spied on display (covertly) in the teachers' lounge of an elementary school. The picture shows children, hand in hand, circling the world, and the caption reads: “The greatest resource that any country can have is its children.” I use the word “covertly” because this is the greatest secret in the world today. When it comes to personal power, people will guard it with their lives, for it makes all the difference between life and death.
The Queen and Her Imperial Guard
But if the world is shaped and controlled by Collective Motherhood, why doesn't it appear to be matriarchal? I say, for the same reason that a don in the Mafia doesn't do his own killing. He is insulated from the rest of the world - competing for the same limited power resources as him - by his fall guy, the hit man, who if caught, takes the heat in place of the don. This hit man is the expendable one, or what I call the “Mindless Sacrificial Male.” He is mindless because he does the will of someone else, in this case the Mafia boss. Keeping this in mind, and remembering the common (I say universal) child rearing practice known as Emotional Incest, or the Marriage of Mother and Son, let me introduce you to what I consider to be the true rulers of the world: “Mother & Son, Inc.” Mother dictates; Son executes. Mother is the Empress; Son is the Imperial Guard. There has never been any real democracy, for all government begins at the grassroots level of the family, and here there has surely been nothing but a monarchy.
Let's now look at how Mother comes to be not only an Empress, but also a Goddess (besides the fact that most monarchs have claimed to be divine!). The reason the formative years are so important for the establishment of a child's loyalty toward the parent has a lot to do with a phenomenon in human development called “childhood amnesia.” The hippocampus, an organ in the brain that is responsible for memory, does not mature until about the age of two. Before this, no episodic memory can be recalled. This state of childhood amnesia is the period where I am convinced all “religion” - that is, all irrational and magical elements in “religion” - comes from. And every major religion in the world has as its central figure the anthropomorphic version of Who the author Nancy Friday has called “the Giantess of the Nursery.” This is literally “Big Mama!” The infant before two is taking in all the impressions of its world, and they are all very much “bigger than life” - at least this little, vulnerable life lying in the cradle. And who has always dominated this scene? You've got it! Mother becomes the austere and overpowering giver and taker of life; if She were to abandon this infant, the little one would know instinctively of itself that “thou shalt surely die!” Mother, by her single presence, implants the “Fear of God(dess)” into every child. And, I assure you, Dear Audience, that next to this irrational fear, reason and rationality shrink and cower!
Because of this irrational awe embedded in our behavioral foundation, humans have devoted much of their time to the worship of the Great Goddess Mother. From the Paleolithic Age, we have the excavated statuettes of the Fertility Goddess (another way of saying “Virgin Mother,” since the connection between sex and childbirth was a secret kept from the men at this time). These statuettes were reverently placed in each home in much the same way and for the same reason that most Catholics today have a statue of Mother Mary in their homes and/or on their front lawns. In the Mesopotamian area we have the examples of Inanna, in Sumer, and Ishtar (from whence comes our English word “Easter”), in Babylonia. The reign of these versions of the Mother Goddess, “Queen of Heaven,” lasted more than twice as long as any so-called “patriarchal” religion coming after them on the historical timeline. And the alternate forms of the Queen of Heaven can be found everywhere. In the East, She is the Cosmic Mother who gives birth to the universe; in the West, She is the Virgin Mother who gives birth to the god who creates the universe (meaning still that She is the original creator!).
The Opposition
But there is one abominable thing that has stood in the way between Mother and Her unfettered rule of the world: specifically, men's sperm, and generally, the men who carry it around. So the question has always been what to do about this pesky little upstart and his insistence on fairness and an equal slice of the pie for the use of his sperm. After all, he has said, I have rights too, you know! So the answer for the Queen of Heaven, one that has consumed an intolerable amount of Her time, has been the pursuit of the most economical way to control the production and the ownership of men's sperm. Masturbation had to be nixed. No male could be allowed to have self-control over his own sexual urges. Therefore, the “hair on the palms” and “blindness” scare tactics began to be employed early on in the male child's development, not to mention circumcision as the Mother-version of the Indian scalpings to show domination over conquered territory. And - just as in the Antebellum South - to control this slave population, the technique employed was to isolate one man from another, in order to keep them from carrying on any genuine communication between themselves (which would inevitably lead to a “Nat Turner” uprising!). So during the upbringing of males, the circumscribed conversational topics amounted to tips shared on how to be a better ball buster and territory conqueror for the purpose of gaining resources ultimately used by Collective Motherhood for nesting and child rearing. These topics took the form of win-lose contact sports, “my chariot is faster than your chariot,” and various “business” strategies designed to acquire the biggest portion of the Watering Hole.
And in order to form a more malleable male, a non-verbal conversation takes place between Mother and Son during his formative years that can be translated roughly into these words: “Son - I think the time has come to tell you some bad news. You see - uh - all men are bad, and, well, since you're a man, then *sob* that makes you bad, too! But - don't kill yourself just yet - I mean - try to understand something. Even though you're counted with all of the other miserable scum - I mean - men of the world, doomed to pay for their wickedness, there is hope for you - yes, my son - hope for your redemption - by serving the Good Woman, who is the light of this otherwise stinking world!” With this, Sonny learns his place in the pecking order as the Mindless Sacrificial Male, who serves women at the expense of men, including himself. And so this Chosen Son makes his way out into all the earth, nailed to the very World Cross, Joseph Campbell informs us, that is the GEOgraphical cross (North, South, East, and West) of GAIA, Mother Earth, displayed on virtually every map ever made.
This relationship of Mother & Son, Inc. can be vividly seen in its architectural renditions, best exemplified in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. I have a terrific aerial shot that I got off the Net showing Big Mama's breast-dome, complete with erect and actively lactating nipple. It even has a very visible areola, just to remove all doubt as to what it is. Mama's breast sits atop the center of Her cross-shaped body (I told you the symbol is Hers!). Junior, the phallic minaret, stands as the sentinel (the Imperial Guard, remember?) attached to the place where She is “entered” (giving fresh meaning to that “P.W.” word!). And Mama's primary purpose is to suck as many people as possible back into Her cavernous womb inside, because, as a Right to Life-r, Mother exclaims, eyes wide and disconnected, “I must have more children of god! They must all be born again - And Again - AND AGAIN! WHEE, HA HA HA HA!” (Coo-coo! Coo-coo! Tilt! Tilt!) In Her insatiable glut for power, Mother has become utterly power-mad, confusing the direction that life is supposed to take (away from the womb, for crying out loud!).
And here's something to think about regarding the “immaculate conception” of “virgin mothers.” Even though humans (as well as all higher primates) are tricky, part of being tricky is to look as though you're not (the old “coming out smelling like a rose” thing). In order for Mother to appear fair, while stealing men's sperm in the most unfair manner to horde all power for Herself in the form of children-disciples, She has to eradicate every “legal” connection with the impregnating man. So She denies that She ever had “bad sex” with that “bad man,” and instead insists on a divine conception, which of course elevates Her own position above all reproach (Gee, you were chosen by the creator of the universe? Wow!). I get a chuckle out of the more modern, “secular” approaches to being the innocent virgin-mother types, who use updated Absent-Father metaphors, such as “the stork,” or “I got you from the grocery store.” Any way it is looked at, the object behind Mother's trickery is to lay full “legal” claim to Her child-prize.
The Substitute Savior
So then, in a nutshell, the world scene of humans consists of “goddess” mothers competing with each other for the biggest loot, and employing their “reincarnated god”-sons in something resembling a back-alley dogfight. Whichever goddess wins the match also gets a free bumper sticker that says, “My god beat up your honor student”! And remember how I told you that everything is just the opposite of what it appears to be? Well, the Mother's Son, who has been told all his life that he is a GOD, is really nothing more than Her well-trained guard DOG! (Of course, I say this not to the shame of men, but of mothers.) And the mother who can concoct the most powerful “religion” will be the one to gain the edge over the others. For instance, the group of mother-allies that can convince a mindless sacrificial male that he will be glorified forever by driving a truckload of explosives into the “enemy” Mothers' sons' compound and blowing it and himself to smithereens will be among the top-pick goddesses. The same goes for other irrational (I told you this “0-2 years” stuff was powerful!) acts, such as diving your plane and torpedo into a big, hard boat for the glory of the Emperor (really the Empress in disguise: remember - the will of the Son is the will of the Mother).
That the Son does the Mother's will becomes the greatest lesson to learn in this “mystery religion.” When Jesus is supposed to have said, “I and the Father are one,” the author was really drawing up from the unconscious the underlying principle of Mother & Son, Inc.: “I and the Mother are one!” And when Jesus was supposed to have died a slow, torturous, life-draining death on that cross, it was accounted that He took on the sins of the “Other.” The sins of the Mother became the sins of the Son, because he was raised to serve and protect Her Majesty with his life. He is Her Imperial Guard, who stands in front of Her to make Her invisible, and to take the bullet for Her, dying as the substitute for Her so that She may have eternal life (Long Live the Queen!!).
At the same time, the Son is Joshua, which is the Hebrew name for the Greek name Jesus. And we probably all know this song: “Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, and the walls came tumbling down!” The Mother's Chosen Son is Her warrior prince, Her territory conqueror; his de-sensitivity toward his own gender, while beheading and de-boweling them, is a mixed-up marvel that nonetheless can be explained, not with Freud's so-called “Oedipus Battle,” but with Eric Berne's feminine game “Let's You And Him Fight.” Or we can apply to this unnatural, culturally manipulated behavior the findings of the Milgram Experiment. Originally, this experiment was conducted to try to explain how the Germans could have been so inhuman towards the Jewish people. And the title of a song by Peter Gabriel about this experiment encapsulates its results: “We Do What We're Told.” The Mother and the Son “enable” each other to commit atrocities, because neither feels the need to accept the blame and responsibility for the other's intents and/or actions. If Joshua slays a hundred of his “enemies,” it is because God (really Goddess) told him to do it. He feels no remorse, because he's not responsible for the act. And God(dess) has distanced Herself from this gory display of power, which She authored, because She has been atoned by Her substitute savior son, who “willingly” took Her place (“I'll save you, my Lady!” - reminds me of those very Catholic, chivalrous knight tales). What is really frightening, and may be just over the horizon, is a possibility hinted at by the vast number of young boys that I encountered at school named Joshua by their flesh-eating, blood-drinking church mothers!
The Light Comes On
Now, just because Junior is playing the expendable, mindless sacrificial male doesn't mean that he's stupid. He knows, somewhere simmering on the back burner of his mind, that he is being used. But at the same time, he is driven by this irrational fear (from the childhood amnesia days) that he feels he dares not try to articulate. However, at certain crisis points in his life (the heat of battle, for instance) he begins to formulate ideas for a better way to live. When enough expendable males get this epiphany at the same time, revolt is the result. Let me give you a couple of examples of this, spanning a vast amount of time, so that you will see that male anxiety over women's position in life is not a recent phenomenon, but has occurred throughout the existence of Homo sapiens. In Joseph Campbell's first volume of The Masks of God, Primitive Mythology, he tells us that:
There can be no doubt that in the very earliest ages of human history the magical force and wonder of the female was no less a marvel than the universe itself; and this gave to women a prodigious power . . . Among the Ona of Tierra del Fuego, for example, . . . in those far-off days witchcraft was known only to the women of Onaland. . . . The men lived in abject fear and subjection. Certainly they had bows and arrows with which to supply the camp with meat, yet, they asked, what use were such weapons against witchcraft and sickness? This tyranny of the women grew from bad to worse until it occurred to the men that a dead witch was less dangerous than a live one. They conspired together to kill off all the women; and there ensued a great massacre, from which not one woman escaped in human form. (315)
The other example I want to share happened in the latter part of the Eighteenth Century in Europe. This excerpt is from American Atheists' own Conrad Goeringer at the end of his AA web-site article “The Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and the Illuminati”: “The capture of [the Illuminati's] cyphered writings, in the house of Zwack in 1786, disclosed that their primary plan was to gain over women, since women have initial control over each new generation in the persons of children in their care.” This is the big, bad “Patriarchy”? As Daffy Duck once said, “It is to laugh!” Too bad it's not a laughing matter. And this puts a new spin on the word “Protestant.” The Protestants managed to break away from the mother-worshipping Catholics; in turn, Protestantism paved the way for the democratic revolutions that eventually created this country of ours, with its goal of separation of Church and State. And when we realize that the Church is not called “Mother Church” for nothing, and that the Son's position has been as the executor of Her will, we will finally see that separation of Church and State equals separation of Mother and Son!
Weighed in the Balance
Lastly, what I need to expand on here is something that I mentioned briefly before: that all government begins at the grassroots level of the family unit. If at the family level there is no democracy, with its characteristic checks and balances, then there can be no real democracy on any higher level of government. As a result, we in the U.S. are beginning to experience the situation envisioned by the Irish poet W. B. Yeats in “The Second Coming [of Mother?]”:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
In order to prevent democracy from falling apart, power MUST be distributed equally between at least two entities with opposing interests; what I mean by this term is simple: you have something I need, and I have something you need. On the federal government level, the balance of power occurs among the three branches with their opposing interests: the Legislative is not the Executive; the Executive is not the Judiciary; and so on. At the family level of government, the balance of power must be between the owner of the male gamete and the possessor of the female gamete, which in the united state produces the zygote that will become the subject of government. Balance of power does not occur in families where this opposing interest does not exist: the Melissa (Yes I Am a Cheater!) Etheridge and Julie Cypher “modern” family types (hailed by Time magazine as such!) on the one hand, and the traditional mother/grandmother child-raising team in the “Breadwinner”/Absent Father-type families (such as the Promise Keepers envision!) on the other hand.
With all said that space allows, let me introduce you to an entirely new concept: Democratic Parenting. Simply put, Democratic Parenting is defined like this: The male parent and the female parent will have equal, daily access to their child/children from the delivery room forward. This is the ONLY way to ensure equal representation from and balance of power between the sexes. And it is the only way to prevent “anti-male bias” - being generated presently by “modern” families, as well as having been produced by traditional “families” for the past 100,000-plus years - so evident in human history from the ritual regicides of the earliest civilizations to today's symbol of the “mindless sacrificial male” atop every Christian church in the world. Democratic Parenting is the closest thing to a panacea for all the human-caused problems facing our world community. And it is, most importantly, a plan that our present economic system can support with very few modifications. One simple example is this: in our present 24-hour work world, one parent can work a different shift from the other parent, with an employer-accommodating half-hour overlap between those shifts for the exchanging of the child/children. The details of fitting Democratic Parenting into your daily lifestyles, Dear Audience, I leave up to you; what can be conceived, can be achieved. Know this: I am confident in the ability of humans toward a high degree of adaptability, and am convinced that our evolution as a species is toward equality and fairness between the sexes.
TO VISIT THE REST OF THE SITE,
CLICK ON THE PAGE OF YOUR CHOICE:
Please send e-mail comments and questions to Jay B. Scott