The ‘Self-Abnegation of … Gender Identity’

Posted on | August 12, 2015 | 49 Comments

“I’m proud of being trans and queer and I wouldn’t have it any other way,” Emily Sommer concludes her decidedly weird column at the feminist blog The-Toast.net, which is chock full of the trendy jargon of feminist “gender theory”:

I consider my perspective as a trans woman versus hers as a cis woman. I explain, abstractly, how self-abnegation of one’s gender identity may lead to vulnerability, that the ethos of transmisogyny leached into me like a virus and even when I learned to value myself I was left with the small, irrational fear that a mere verbal attack could blink me out of existence. . . .
Gendering is a common courtesy. Did you know that you’re more likely to be gendered while involved in a transaction? Gendering gives a sales associate a statistical edge. Or perhaps, it’s that our terms of respect (ma’am; sir, miss) are tied to the gender binary.
The sensation of negating your identity, your very existence, for decades until the dissonance, the dysphoria, from self-abnegation becomes so great that you choose to live authentically in a sort of limbo, for a time, and then having a stranger see plainly, validate plainly, who you are is surreal. . . .
The word “navigate” is commonly used to describe how we manage personal and professional relationships to find a place for ourselves in the world. . . . Navigation is often the belief in one’s self despite media narratives meant to erase any and all challenge to traditional gender.
Media stories of transgender women focus on a range of demeaning tropes meant to label us caricatures of femininity; label us as mentally ill and otherwise erase us from the conversation. . . . A common example is the notion gender identity is a mental disorder. It’s not. Gender Identity Disorder (GID) was removed from the DSM V that was published in 2013 (homosexuality was removed in 1973). GID was replaced with Gender Dysphoria, which means it’s sort of rough when our gender identities are abased for decades. . . . What media sources often fail to portray is self-possession, a sense of agency and outspoken critiques of the status quo. . . .

You can read the whole thing if those excerpts are not enough to fill your daily quota of crazy feminism. What we perceive in “transfeminism” is how, like all other feminism, it is an attempt to tell us what we are permitted to think by tell us what we are allowed to say. The feminist must always lecture us about our alleged bigotry.

We are inferior. We are ignorant and backward and in need of feminist lectures to enlighten us about how we contribute to oppression simply by failing to speak the Officially Approved Language. Of course, the feminist lexicon is continually updated to reflect the latest theories — “Gender Identity Disorder” being replaced by “Gender Dysphoria” — so that we can be condemned as a haters if we use a term that was accepted as scientific fact until two years ago.

Feminism is a shell game, a three-card monte hustle, and the question we must ask is, “Who appointed these people to be society’s Arbiters of Moral Truth?” By what authority do these people presume to tell us what we are allowed to say? You can call Emily Sommer a “transfeminist,” or you can call him a ridiculous sissy. Feminists will say that the more accurate description is offensive simply because it is true: Facts are hate!

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

49 Responses to “The ‘Self-Abnegation of … Gender Identity’”

Anchovy
August 12th, 2015 @ 11:01 am

Perhaps Tiger Woods should self identify as female and go play in the LPGA and see if he can win a few bucks there. Wonder how the ladies would react to that.
JC
August 12th, 2015 @ 11:32 am

What’s your point?
jakee308
August 12th, 2015 @ 11:53 am

They don’t seem to understand that people generally don’t like to be lectured and they certainly don’t want to be lectured by some deviant. So what will happen is that they will find themselves shunned by the normal more and more and forced into interaction only with those sharing their mutual deviance.

And I’m fine with that. That’s what’s commonly done with any potentially communicable disease where the cure is unknown (and they make themselves a threat by their every action). Isolation primarily to keep the incidents of contact to a minimum.

They understand this which is why they’ve seized on the Univs as their choice of incubation medium but which can be turned against them quicker than they think. Even without Administrative sanction, the student body can reject these anti social anti bodies and prevent their further spread.

Stacey has done the research, now it’s time to effect a cure.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
August 12th, 2015 @ 11:53 am

Who cares how they want to identify themselves, they’re in love…

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mgdyPMLZVCE/VctvHtBt0aI/AAAAAAAAx6E/HLvgK2ua0Wk/s1600/Trump%2BSanders%2BKings%2Bof%2Bthe%2BWorld.PNG
Daniel Freeman
August 12th, 2015 @ 12:40 pm

Is this a skillful parody or utterly sincere? I honestly can’t tell any more. (h/t Vox Day)
Dana
August 12th, 2015 @ 1:05 pm

I consider my perspective as a trans woman versus hers as a cis woman. I explain, abstractly, how self-abnegation of one’s gender identity may lead to vulnerability, that the ethos of transmisogyny leached into me like a virus and even when I learned to value myself I was left with the small, irrational fear that a mere verbal attack could blink me out of existence. . . .

Can we get an English teacher to diagram those two sentences, please?
The ‘Self-Abnegation of … Gender Identity’ | Living in Anglo-America
August 12th, 2015 @ 1:06 pm

[…] http://kxm.209.mwp.accessdomain.com/2015/08/12/the-self-abnegation-of-gender-identity/ […]
RS
August 12th, 2015 @ 1:09 pm

Two things:

First, in the comments to the linked article we find this:

“(P)erhaps, it’s that our terms of respect (ma’am; sir, miss) are tied to the gender binary.”

Just came down here to say THIS, SO MUCH. A former waitress, and I’m absolutely guilty of having used these terms recklessly; and it’s true, or at least was in my experience, that there’s a weird binary in the transactional role-play that was so easy to fall into. It needs to shift.

How does one use the words, “sir” or “ma’am” recklessly? Those words are chosen based upon visual cues. To either take offence or feel guilt because someone misreads ambiguous cues is absurd. Further, those taking offence are deliberately seeking to mau-mau their way into “victim” status by setting up society to fail to meet their ever changing demands regarding acceptance.

Second, note well the patent absurdity/self-contradiction of the essay’s thesis beginning with the title. The writer is “trans,” which presumably means he feels like he’s a female. Thus, he wishes others to believe and treat him as a female and has adopted visual markers to obtain that result. But, he doesn’t want to be Cis? What the fuck does that mean? Either he wishes to be seen as female or not. There’s no mythical “third way.”

In truth, what this shows us is that the entire “trans” movement is narcissistic solipsism (or solipsistic narcissism) writ large in an attempt to hold the rest of us hostage to their own weird reality. Maybe the next time they can let the crazy guy on the street corner write an article about how difficult it is because no one addresses him by his proper moniker, “Jesus Christ.”
Dana
August 12th, 2015 @ 1:10 pm

Gendering is a common courtesy. Did you know that you’re more likely to be gendered while involved in a transaction? Gendering gives a sales associate a statistical edge. Or perhaps, it’s that our terms of respect (ma’am; sir, miss) are tied to the gender binary.

The sensation of negating your identity, your very existence, for decades until the dissonance, the dysphoria, from self-abnegation becomes so great that you choose to live authentically in a sort of limbo, for a time, and then having a stranger see plainly, validate plainly, who you are is surreal. . . .

But, of course, what Mr Sommer — I used the correct honorific; he is a male — is really saying is that he managed to deceive an observer into thinking that he is a female. He is happy that he has not only lied to himself, but lied to someone else, and didn’t get caught.

It is true that our terms of respect are tied to the gender binary, which is to say, they are tied to reality.
The original Mr. X
August 12th, 2015 @ 1:31 pm

In a similar vein, when are they going to rescind Caitlyn Jenner’s medals?
Evi L. Bloggerlady
August 12th, 2015 @ 1:40 pm

I can’t tell any more. Ask me after a couple of cocktails.
RS
August 12th, 2015 @ 1:46 pm

This what those who insist that while they don’t believe that trans people can actually change their biological sex, we must nonetheless honor their requests regarding pronoun use and such out of “politeness.”

Wrong.

The “politeness gambit” is merely another, slightly less malignant way of enforcing totalitarian diktats. I refuse to play along. Fortunately, when/if I ever address one of these people directly, the second person pronoun “you” is sex neutral.
Jim R
August 12th, 2015 @ 2:05 pm

Um… What the hell is “gendering”?
DeadMessenger
August 12th, 2015 @ 2:08 pm

It’ll have to be a mentally ill English teacher, I’m afraid.
concern00
August 12th, 2015 @ 2:13 pm

I’ve said it before, so I’ll say it again. The freaks have left the asylum…or in those rare instances where they evaded authorities, the circus.
DeadMessenger
August 12th, 2015 @ 2:20 pm

That mythical “third way” thing is another reason I dislike “Ms.” as a title. (Forced upon us by feminists IYR.)

If a woman is wearing a wedding band, she is Mrs. If she’s not, she’s Miss. This was simple and logical. Then along came the third way, and suddenly nobody knows what to call women.

I guess it doesn’t matter now, though, since everybody is suddenly on a first name basis. Kids of acquaintances think they can call me by my first name. Wet-behind-the-ears whelps in doctor’s offices think they can call me by my first name. Telemarketers think they can call me by my first name. It’s incredibly rude and presumptuous.
DeadMessenger
August 12th, 2015 @ 2:58 pm

“Self-abnegation”? For reals? But I suppose it does sound better than “lack of self-discipline” or “lack of self-control”, which is what mature adults call it when a person thinks that he should deny himself nothing, even for his own good.
Fail Burton
August 12th, 2015 @ 3:15 pm

You can lecture me after you’ve invented all things on Earth. Until then STFU.
RS
August 12th, 2015 @ 4:04 pm

Actually, “self-abnegation” is redundant. “To abnegate” means to relinquish for oneself right, privileges, etc. to which one is entitled. “Self” is a completely superfluous addition and adds nothing to the sentence. Further, even “abnegate” would not be the best word, inasmuch as one cannot “abnegate” an “identity.” One abnegates rights or privileges. Finally, it’s unclear what he’s saying. Is he renouncing “maleness” which leads to vulnerability or does he speak of hiding his Inner tootsie leading to vulnerability? I’ve seen better, more coherent prose from the Postmodern Essay Generator.
Finrod Felagund
August 12th, 2015 @ 4:13 pm

I hate people that arbitrarily verb nouns.
RS
August 12th, 2015 @ 4:34 pm

In another comment from the link, this one from someone who identifies as “transfeminine (and agender)” with my emphasis:

I don’t want to hear unprovoked half-baked, “radical” theories of gender that actually just reinforce the status quo and pathologize trans people.

Ponder that statement in all its glory. Biological facts are now “radical theories.” There is nothing else to say at this point except, “God help us.”
Burn_the_Witch
August 12th, 2015 @ 5:00 pm

There was some jackass trying that very ploy in one of the earlier threads yesterday.

Lying to me is not polite. Expecting me to believe your lie is not polite. Expecting me to lie on your behalf is not only not polite, it’s totalitarian.
JosephBleau
August 12th, 2015 @ 5:05 pm

Done!
JosephBleau
August 12th, 2015 @ 6:37 pm

But, otherwise, keep up the good work! Donation sent.
JosephBleau
August 12th, 2015 @ 6:48 pm

“How does one use the words, “sir” or “ma’am” recklessly? ”
Hey! Be careful where you point that dangerous term “sir”. You might put someone’s eye out!
RKae
August 12th, 2015 @ 7:25 pm

Telemarketers think they can call me ~~by my first name~~.
WarEagle82
August 12th, 2015 @ 7:26 pm

You don’t have to be crazy to be a feminist, but….

Oh, wait! It appears you DO have to be crazy to be a feminist.

Never mind.
RKae
August 12th, 2015 @ 7:41 pm

I was trying to explain to a young hipster that, as an artist, a taboo is a good thing. It forces you to think and invent.

“No!” she insisted. “All artists need unlimited freedom!” (And by extension, unlimited funds from taxpayers!)

I pointed out some easy, quick examples:

1.) The writers of “Taxi” were tasked with making Louie DePalma the rudest man in New York… but they couldn’t use profanity. The lines they came up with for Danny DeVito were classic!

2.) Writing for the stage is the ultimate taboo. You are stuck with time limits, budget constraints, and all the things you can’t do on stage that you can do in film quite easily (switch scenes for a second, blow things up, do extreme close-ups). That’s why when someone can write a play, he or she is a real writer.

3.) Al Stewart wrote one of the most brilliant albums in music history (“Past, Present, Future”) when he gave himself the order to write an entire album with NO love songs on it.

I said that all artists should not only stop bitching about constraints on their work, but they should also be imposing THEIR OWN constraints on it.

She just stomped away in rage and refused to hear any more.

Denying ourselves things makes us better people.
DeadMessenger
August 12th, 2015 @ 7:49 pm

I agree wholeheartedly! I enjoy having constraints, in both my technical work and my artwork, because I enjoy the challenge. In fact, I prefer constraints placed upon me by others, to those that I place upon myself. I want the challenge, and I don’t want it to be easy. Where’s the fun in that?

Re #3′ I didn’t know that. And I love that album, and listen to it still today. (On my iPad, but I also have it on vinyl; that’s how good it is, that I’ve paid for it multiple times.
DeadMessenger
August 12th, 2015 @ 7:51 pm

Yes, which is why, when they do, I evangelize them. Either a seed is planted, or I get on a no-call list. It’s a win-win!
DeadMessenger
August 12th, 2015 @ 7:53 pm

Yeah, well you know, idiots gotta…uh…idiot.
RKae
August 12th, 2015 @ 7:58 pm

If you like Al’s “Past, Present, Future,” check out his relatively obscure “Between the Wars!”

It’s like “Last Day of June, 1934” and “Warren Harding” turned into a whole album!

And dang! I could go on all day about the constraints of writing for the stage!

You have a messenger come in and say, “Here’s a telegram!” …Well, you know what the producers are gonna say? “That’s an actor and a costume! Can you get the info in there without needing another actor and a costume?”

And if you think you can just use a chorus actor for it, well, it turns out there’s a huge chorus number coming up in the next scene and the actor won’t be able to change in time.

Theater is all about logistics!

You know that faboo song “Guys and Dolls”? (“When you see a guy reach for stars in the sky, you can bet that he’s doing it for some doll!”) It’s a fun song! It’s a crowd-pleaser! …You know why it’s there? To take up time while they change the set behind the curtain!

It’s those logistics that separate the real writers from the wanna-bes.
RS
August 12th, 2015 @ 8:05 pm

The “gendering” gerund.
DeadMessenger
August 12th, 2015 @ 10:20 pm

I did some theater in my younger years, so I have a rudimentary concept of the logistics. Even as an actor, as you know, you have have to be able to change costumes and even make-up in a flash. It gets so ingrained, that even now, untold years later, I sit around cooling my heels while my husband finishes getting ready.

I wish I knew you personally. I could sit around listening to theater stories all day. 😀
@ImaCarNow
August 13th, 2015 @ 9:32 am

She posts at “The-Toast.net”…seriously? Isn’t she aware that toast is oppression? Why not just scream: “Make me a sandwich!” while she’s at it? Or, “L’eggo my Eggo!” It’s so wrong… #NotanAlly #ToastIsOppression
Daniel Freeman
August 13th, 2015 @ 11:56 am

I think that’s a re-nounification.
omicron123
August 13th, 2015 @ 10:05 pm

*grabs popcorn* This looks fun.
It occurs to me that leftist ‘rebels with a cause’ operate in much the same way as any of the firebrand, ‘bible-bashing’ preachers they love to hate – yell about one’s target audience’s sins till they’re blue in the face, then sit back and wonder why nobody was convinced.
omicron123
August 13th, 2015 @ 10:13 pm

Please, by all means keep calling me a jackass and spouting all sorts of ill-intended perjoratives. But before you do ask yourself this: how many friends have you made by calling them jackasses? Or people convinced of the rightness of your cause?

There’s trying to catch flies with vinegar, and then there’s setting up a giant Conan-style tower of tiny fly skulls drenched in the stuff, with a sign on top that says “Conform to my worldview or gtfo.”
omicron123
August 13th, 2015 @ 10:16 pm

Wonderful. That way you can still make your displeasure at their life choices snootily known while claiming innocence should handkerchiefs drop and ladies swoon in shock.
Burn_the_Witch
August 13th, 2015 @ 11:13 pm

I actually didn’t name you as the jackass, but I see you recognized your behavior. Looks like you’re improving, although one name isn’t exactly “all sorts” of pejoratives. Baby steps I guess.

To your first question – I haven’t made any friends with jackasses (for obvious reasons). I think you inverted “convinced” and “people” in your second. I’ll answer it as if you did. I’ve convinced many, and failed many. C’est la vie.

” with a sign on top that says “Conform to my worldview or gtfo.”

That’s the beautiful thing here, I’m not talking about my subjective worldview, I’m talking about objective reality. It is you who are expecting me to believe what’s swirling around inside your head. It is you who expects me to behave according to your dictates.

Despite your histrionics, I haven’t told you to “gtfo”, I’ve simply told you “no”. And that burns you to your very core. You cannot accept it. You refuse to accept it. You demand that I change to meet your whims. I refuse. Get over it.

Don’t make your problems mine.
Daniel Freeman
August 14th, 2015 @ 12:23 am

You have it completely backward. RS is expressing his reluctance to give offense, while explicitly refusing to comply. Theodore Dalrymple:

Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the
better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
Daniel Freeman
August 14th, 2015 @ 12:29 am

It’s a reference to Judith Butler’s seminal* work, Gender Trouble.

* [snicker]
omicron123
August 14th, 2015 @ 5:33 am

My second question was built to follow the structure of the first, in a method common to older prose, thank you very much.

As far as “saying no”, though – choosing to call me something I am not is not saying no. It’s being deliberately offensive, in much the same way that anyone who rants about ‘rethuglikkkans’ (or worse) is being deliberately offensive.
But — I don’t want to get into a hundred-post shouting match again. So mea culpa – I did associate all the insults levied against me yesterday into one imagined group consensus. It’s easy to blend things together when you come to a post to file an amicus brief (not all transfolks are tumblr-crazy) and point out that your statement, Dana, about genes and sex, is not correct in all cases (though in easily over 99% of cases it is); and get instantly called “crazy”, “he”, and a half dozen other things clearly designed to antagonize. But! Not all (or most) of those were you. So sorry.

(Although to refuse to call me by my legal, lived, apparent, physical, and possibly even genetic gender in favor of what you assume I started with (I haven’t even checked, despite there being a couple possible ndicators of such things as Klinefelter’s) is still quite rude. As I mentioned to someone else, I’m one of the lucky ones who has the option to ‘go stealth,’ as they call it. So if the only way you’d know how I was born is if I told you, you really don’t have any excuses left.)
Burn_the_Witch
August 14th, 2015 @ 5:08 pm

Yeah, even in older prose that structure is faulty. Nice try. I wasn’t criticizing it either way, just making sure that my answer comported with how I perceived your question.

“As far as “saying no”, though – choosing to call me something I am not is not saying no. It’s being deliberately offensive, in much the same way that anyone who rants about ‘rethuglikkkans’ (or worse) is being deliberately offensive.”

Bullshit. You are demanding that I lie. I’m telling you that I refuse to lie for you. You’re just projecting your own offense onto me.

A “rethuglikkkan” is a subjective pejorative term. ‘Woman’, ‘Man’, and gender-based pronouns — for which there is objective proof — are quite obviously not. This will be the last flawed analogy of yours I break down. I’ll just label them from here on out.

If you are antagonized by reality, again, that’s not my problem and I refuse to bear your burdens. I’ve got enough of my own that I don’t shove off to other people.

Your expectation for me to believe what’s in your head and subsequent demand that I behave according to such dictates is inherently totalitarian, self-centered, and beyond “rude”. You can keep claiming that my participation in your obvious delusions and lies is rude, but I don’t have to comport to your warped social values either.
omicron123
August 14th, 2015 @ 6:52 pm

Really? So guys are never called “girl” or “woman” as a perjorative? (Furthermore, there are numerous people out there you would never call by the term associated with the “objective proof” you claim – as referenced myriad times, XX men and AIS women – so drop the BS “objective fact” routine already! You only use it ’cause I happened to tell you my past, and you feel like you’re resisting whatever social changes you dislike in the modern world – not to mention insulting someone you view as an enemy, though I would much rather not be).

I have the same right to be called by my legal, physical, lived, presented, and identified gender as you have. Which is to say, none, but it IS rude not to do so. Your continued pointed averrals *ARE* a deliberate insult, no different from ‘rethuglikkkans’ or any other perjorative.
Face. That. Fact.
Own up to your actions. You don’t have to stop. I wouldn’t think of trying to stop someone as set in their ways as yourself. Just admit to yourself that you’re doing this because you don’t like what I represent (even though I’m on your side on a whole bunch of different political issues), and we can move on with our lives.
omicron123
August 14th, 2015 @ 7:00 pm

Oh, and for the record? I’m not lying. A lie is a deliberate, willful attempt to mislead. At worst I’m guilty of relaying another’s deception; but even that is impossible considering the only reason we’re having this discussion at all is that I was very up front about my past. (Man, did that ever bring the ‘crazies’ out of the woodwork ^_^)
So what we have is someone who stated both who they were and where they came from, requested a certain pronoun, and immediately was attacked by multiple different people determined to knock the different person around a bit.

And also you, who have *repeatedly* denied objective facts (the folks I’m talking about do exist. I’ve met several and they crop up in the news from time to time) in an effort to stick with your original wanton generalization (called out as such) about how the world works.
RS
August 14th, 2015 @ 8:07 pm

So, are we talking about choices now? Because if we are, then all of the nonsense about there being a spectrum of zillions of “genders” which are naturally occurring phenomena goes out the window, doesn’t it? A “choice” is a conscious decision. A person may chose to identify as Napoleon Bonaparte but neither I nor society at large are not required to play along with their whims and make believe.
Burn_the_Witch
August 15th, 2015 @ 11:16 am

“Really? So guys are never called “girl” or “woman” as a perjorative?”

Not when they are properly applied to someone who is a girl or a woman. Any other brilliant questions?

“(Furthermore, there are numerous people out there you would never call
by the term associated with the “objective proof” you claim – as
referenced myriad times, XX men and AIS women – so drop the BS
“objective fact” routine already!”

Yes, we call these people deluded as well. So again – no, I refuse to bend to your bizarre demands. The number of people who are affected by a legitimate physiological gender disorder is already much smaller than the vanishingly small number of people who are simply self-deluded about it. I have genuine sympathy for them as well.

But realize that you are the only one making demands here, and every time you continue to demand I adopt your confused worldview, I will reject it. So you should probably stop wasting your time, you little authoritarian.

Pointing out facts and demonstrating them is hardly “resisting social change” or “insulting”.

As for the rest of your complaint, you seem to think that simple repetition brings credibility to your argument. I have no desire to continue repeating myself. I’m quite comfortable with what I’ve already said.

Based on your arguments here alone, I’d be willing to bet we’re not political allies on quite a number of things, but that – as it has always been in this argument – is irrelevant.
Burn_the_Witch
August 15th, 2015 @ 11:36 am

“Oh, and for the record? I’m not lying. A lie is a deliberate, willful attempt to mislead. At worst I’m guilty of relaying another’s deception;”

That’s fine, I can totally accept that. But my point still stands – I do not have to accept your subjective worldview. And I am certainly under social obligation to do so.

Though I will say this is at odds with your characterization below about “choices”. I’d be interested to watch you try to reconcile these competing views.

To use sound analogous reasoning – I don’t have to accept that God exists based upon someone else’s belief. Furthermore, I’m not obligated to state that God exists so as not to offend a believer in God. To expect this of me is to display a totalitarian mindset.

I have not denied any objective facts. As I acknowledged in my other response to you, I’m well aware of a very tiny number of people who suffer from legitimate physiologically-based gender disorders. But my comments are for the general gender dysphoric trans “community”.

And yes, I will continue to use generalizations because – as with most conversations with the LGBTAQQWTF community – the discussion gets hopelessly bogged down in imaginary semantics. I’m not going to bother wading into the morass of competitive dysfunction.

The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The ‘Self-Abnegation of … Gender Identity’

Comments

THE FULL METAL JACKET REACH-AROUND AWARD

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

THE PATRIARCH TREE

Recent Posts

RSS reader subscription

MEMEORANDUM

Recent Comments

THE AMAZING GONZO FEED

Search the Blog

Blog-Fu Ninja Masters

ADVERTISEMENT

Axis of Fedorables

AMAZING SAVINGS NOW!

Archives

Wombat's Wizards of Blog

SHOP NOW FOR AWESOME COMPUTER DEALS!

Can't Get Enough of That Hot Bloggy Stuff

Blogroll