Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study: Women, Men Equally Violent With Partners-When Only Partner Is Violent, It's Usually The Woman
koat ^

Posted on 07/30/2002 4:01:03 PM PDT by chance33_98


Study: Women, Men Equally Violent With Partners
When Only Partner Is Violent, It's Usually The Woman
Posted: 4:18 p.m. EDT July 30, 2002

DURHAM, N.H.-- A study by the University of New Hampshire of college students says women are as violent as men toward their partners. The Family Research Laboratory study suggests that when only one partner is violent, it is twice as likely to be the woman.

The survey questioned 1,446 students from: the Universidad Autonoma de Ciudad in Juarez, Mexico; University of Texas at El Paso; Texas Tech; and UNH.

Study author Murray Straus says the findings suggest that programs and policies aimed at preventing intimate partner violence by some women are crucial.

Straus was offering details Tuesday in Montreal at the 15th World Meeting of the International Society for Research on Aggression.

But the findings were disputed by the director of Portsmouth, N.H.-based Sexual Assault Support Services.

The executive director says her first take, after reading this, is that it seems like an oversimplified response to a complex problem.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: sillygirls; violence; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-192 next last
To: Conagher
According to the women's movement men and women are equal and should be treated completely equal. But then they turn around and say men are different. The point, to me, of this study was that some were claiming men and women were the same in yet another area. Men are stronger, but that does not make them more qualified to be firefighters according to the movement because a woman can be strong too and deserves the chance. Same goes with relationships then, men might be stronger but women can be shown to be able to do the job of abuser just as well if not better.

Equality is a great thing... :)
161 posted on 07/31/2002 10:18:21 PM PDT by chance33_98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98; trussell; Violette
I thought this one up the other day. Posted again for your edification.

"Womyn have the right to experience any mood at any time for any reason, and men have no right to protest.

"Womyn have the right to cause men to wait as they survey their entire closet full of clothing for hours on end due to the fact that they can find nothing to wear.

"Womyn have the right for one week each month to visit any type of abuse, whether it be physical, mental, emotional or any other type, to any man anywhere without fear of reprisal or punishment.

"Womyn have the right to have the seat of any toilet within their range to be down at all times, except such time as a man urinates in such toilets. A man is under no circumstances allowed to "miss" the toilet and hit the rim, even if he cleans it. Both the crime of leaving up the toilet seat and missing the toilet are punishable by summary execution.

"Womyn have the right to ask questions such as, 'Do I look fat in this?' and, 'Do these pants make my butt look big?' and the like, and men, on pain of death, are required to answer emphatically in the negative.

"Womyn have the right to be free from being ogled by men, regardless of how much, how little or what kind of clothing they are wearing, unless they permit men to ogle them. Womyn are not required to tell men whether they permit such ogling, as men should just know.

"Womyn have the right not to be 'hit upon' by men, unless such action is permitted or desired by the womyn. Womyn are not required to tell men whether they permit such 'hitting,' as men should just know.

"Womyn have the right to equal pay for equal work, and equal treatment in all aspects of life, except during menstration. However, womyn have the right not to pay for their drinks or their dinner, movie, or other entertainment when with a man. Womyn have the right to expect men to open doors, carry heavy objects, kill nasty bugs, drive, fix any appliance and do anything that a womyn risks breaking a nail in the doing.

"When engaged in any conflict, womyn are always right and men are always wrong, regardless of the facts of the situation. Womyn are never wrong, and only apologize at their discretion."

162 posted on 07/31/2002 10:26:13 PM PDT by Conagher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Conagher
I dont understand why you began attacking me. I had not disagreed that women are capable of being abusive.

I guess you just got tired of fighting with Violette and decided you would start on me.

I agree that women can be abusive and I do not condone any person being violent or abusive to another. As I said in another post, the only exception is to protect yourself or your children from violent attacks.

Now, I have had enough of your attacks against me. If you decide to continue, you may continue to do so without my cooperation.
163 posted on 07/31/2002 10:31:34 PM PDT by trussell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: trussell
Um, okay.

Here's your ball. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

164 posted on 07/31/2002 10:34:48 PM PDT by Conagher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: technochick99
>>Doesn't testosterone play a major role in aggression?<<

Yeah, just rack it up to "your virtues are your vices."
165 posted on 08/01/2002 7:24:53 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: agarrett
>>However a study (no reference, sorry, can't remember more than reading it) found that men with more testosterone tend to be less aggressive than men with less.<<

That would explain my physical passivity and unwillingness to name call here. 8^>
166 posted on 08/01/2002 7:32:50 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Violette
>>By the way, I'm not deathly afraid of men, I'm cautious. I actually do have a life and a lot of close male friends.<<

I believe you. But you are still single, right? And as long as you feel the way you do, you will be.

Recognizing that you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

Yes, men can hurt you. Cars can cross the centerline on a two lane road and hit you head on. Does that mean you drive at 10 mph, constantly hugging the shoulder waiting for every car you pass to cross the centerline? Of course not.

Metaphorically speaking, Violette, that is EXACTLY what you are doing regarding your relationships with men who are potential dates or romantic interests.

I understand that if you yourself actually had a car cross the centerline and almost kill you, or if you worked in the one hospital where all victims of this kind of accident were taken, you would have a skewed concern that it was going to happen to you. I think that is what is at play here.

Stuff happens. But enjoy life until it does. It is quite probable that every car you pass from this point on will stay on it's side of the road.

It's worth the risk to trust. The rewards are immesurable. Just ask RobroysWoman. 8^>
167 posted on 08/01/2002 7:42:47 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Violette
>>If you mean violence where the intent is to harm in such a way as to gain control and power over the other, I don't believe that women initiate this at the same rate.

Picking arguments, yes, I can see that being equal. Couples fight all the time.<<

Does the phrase, "never bring a knife to a gun fight" mean anything to you.

One thing is for sure, if I was the one with the knife, I sure wouldn't "pick the argument" or egg the guy with the gun on.
168 posted on 08/01/2002 7:45:16 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: meyer; Violette
>>I also agree that when violent men and violent women are compared, the men tend to do more damage.<<

I'm a lay person when it comes to p-sycology, but then, isn't everyone? 8^>

That said, if two people are equally aggressive and one has a gun and the other has a hammer, then my suspicion is that the enemy of the one with the hammer will come away from a fight with bludgeon wounds while the enemy of the one with the gun will come away with bullet wounds.

So men are physically more powerful (generally speaking), while women have other arrows in their quiver to harm their perceived enemies, most not involving physical violence, since it is not an area in which they are usually very strong.

So a woman comes away from a fight with a man and has bruises. A man comes away from a fight with a woman and has no bruises, or house, or kids, or ¾ of his income. Shoot, he may even spend the rest of his life paying for a failed attempt to defend himself against false and unsupported charges of sexually abusing his own kids.

Bruises heal…

169 posted on 08/01/2002 7:55:03 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: agarrett
>>Among randomly tested groups of men, higher testosterone correlated with lower aggression levels. <<

I wonder if high testosterone increases confidence, causing one to fear less and therefore not feel the need to be aggressive, except when directly attacked, when it is, of course, a good thing.
170 posted on 08/01/2002 7:59:48 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Conagher
"Some interesting little facts: Wives or girlfriends assault 2 million men every year (1.8 million women are assaulted by their spouses or boyfriends).

There seems to be a wide variance with your "facts" from the Department of Justice statistics on "Intimate Partner Violence."

171 posted on 08/01/2002 8:08:55 AM PDT by punkit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: ~EagleNebula~
>>why would anyone think a woman "made it up" that her husband was abusing her, to get a divorce then?<<

Simple answer and I too have evidence to support it: To justify her actions. Everyone, when doing a "bad" thing has to have some excuse that justifies it. If she's tired of the guy but there is nothing specific that he has done (no belittling or hitting or yelling) but he has disagreed with her, sometimes raising his voice, but never to the level she does, she can imagine in her own mind that it is abusive.

If he wants sex after she says "no" and she's been saying "no" for months, so he gets a little agressive (just a little) and backs off, she (in her mind Will see it as sexual abuse (forget that the withholding of sex is also sexual abuse)

So now, in her mind, she has the "bad guy" and verbalizes it and commits it to sworn statement. Now, if she is specific, she often will be laughed at because reasonable third parties are not so emotionally caught up. But if she is smart, she simply makes the blanket claim and, viola, no guilt. The b*stard got what he deserved.

Happens all the time. Maybe not in your case, but in thousands of others.

Y'know, I was in a group of individuals that is about half men and half women. One day in a meeting, one of the women suggested that we should increase our practices to two a week (it was a band) and do some other venues. Now this band was everything outside of work for this woman (she had no kids). For me and most of the band it was one of many things we did. Well, another woman in the band in the same boat (no kids or job - the band was her life) thought it would be a good idea. I chimed in that it was already a stretch for me to do the one practice a week since I had a wife, kids, job, lawn to mow, cars to fix, my kids after school stuff to attend, etc. and I didn't think it would be a doable thing, at least for me. I even explained that if it was really important, they may want to get another bass player for this extended stuff.

She started crying and said, "Rob, why are you being so difficult." All I did was POLITELY dissagree with her. Her perception was that I was being "controlling and abusive." Perception is reality. Thank God I am not married to her…

172 posted on 08/01/2002 8:15:37 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Conagher
Your 146 nails the problem with trying to have a logical discussion with emotional creatures.

Oh, and live long and prosper... 8^>
173 posted on 08/01/2002 8:19:06 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ~EagleNebula~
>>However, to imply that the person receiving the aggresive behavior has done something to bring it on is faulty.<<

Not true. Not always.

I have seen women verbally abuse their kids in ways that were effectively ruining them for life. I'VE WITNESSED IT! There was clearly more PERMANENT harm done than could be done by a man that over the years broke bones in the child with beatings.

Why do you think physical harm is the worst thing that can happen?
174 posted on 08/01/2002 8:22:25 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ~EagleNebula~
>>Second, you pretty much called people stupid, and insulted their intelligence.<<

Well, if the shoe fits... And boy, sometimes it really DOES fit. That is not abuse. The word exists for a reason.

stu·pid Pronunciation Key (stpd, sty-)
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est

1.Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2.Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.

I would say that definition number 1 is at play here.

People really ARE stupid in some areas and saying so is not abuse. It's tough love...
175 posted on 08/01/2002 8:35:14 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: punkit
Then post them.
176 posted on 08/01/2002 8:46:46 AM PDT by Conagher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Conagher
"Then post them"

Gladly:

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of justice Statistics


Intimate Partner Violence

May 2000, NCJ 178247
Revised 7/14/00

By Callie Marie Rennison, Ph.D.
and Sarah Welchans
BJS Statisticians



This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables.
A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format
(.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in
.pdf format are available from:
http://www.opj.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv.htm







Highlights

Intimate partners: current or former spouses, boyfriends, and
girlfriends

Violent crimes include lethal (homicide) and nonlethal (rape,
sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault)
offenses.

Lethal

* Intimate partners committed fewer murders in each of the 3
years 1996, 1997, and 1998 than in any other year since 1976.

* Between 1976 and 1998, the number of male victims of
intimate partner homicide fell an average 4% per year and the
number of female victims fell an average 1%.

* In 1998 women were nearly 3 out of 4 victims of the 1,830
murders attributable to intimate partners. In 1976 women were
just over half the approximate 3,000 victims.

* The percentage of female murder victims killed by intimate
partners has remained at about 30% since 1976.

Nonlethal

* The number of female victims of intimate violence declined
from 1993 to 1998. In 1998 women experienced about 900,000
violent offenses at the hands of an intimate, down from 1.1
million in 1993.

* In both 1993 and 1998, men were victims of about 160,000
violent crimes by an intimate partner.

* Considered by age category, 1993-98, women ages 16 to 24
experienced the highest per capita rates of intimate violence
(19.6 per 1,000 women).

* About half the intimate partner violence against women,
1993-98, was reported to the police; black women were more
likely than other women to report such violence.

* About 4 of 10 female victims of intimate partner violence
lived in households with children under age 12. Population
estimates suggest that 27% of U.S. households were home to
children under 12.

* Half of female victims of intimate partner violence reported
a physical injury. About 4 in 10 of these victims sought
professional medical treatment.



Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
indicate that in 1998 about 1 million violent crimes were
committed against persons by their current or former spouses,
boyfriends, or girlfriends. Such crimes, termed intimate partner
violence, are committed primarily against women. About 85% of
victimizations by intimate partners in 1998, about 876,340, were
against women.

Intimate partner violence made up 22% of violent crime against
women between 1993 and 1998. By contrast, during this period
intimate partners committed 3% of the violence against men.

Women experienced intimate partner violence at lower rates in
1998 than in 1993. From 1993 to 1997 the rate of intimate
partner violence fell from 9.8 to 7.5 per 1,000 women. In 1998
the rate was virtually unchanged from that in 1997 (7.7 per
1,000 women). Males experienced intimate partner violence at
similar rates in 1993 and 1998 (1.6 and 1.5 per 1,000 men,
respectively).

In 1998 about 1,830 murders were attributable to intimate
partners, down substantially from the 3,000 murders in 1976.

Measuring intimate partner
victimization

This report updates findings presented in Violence by Intimates
(March 1998, NCJ 167237) and provides more complete statistics
of intimate partner violence against men.

Data

Findings regarding violent crime came from National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) data collected by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS collects data about criminal
victimizations from an ongoing nationally representative sample
of households in the United States. Homicide data were
collected by the FBI, under the Supplementary Homicide Reports
(SHR) of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR).

Definitions

As defined in this report, intimate relationships involve
current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends. These
individuals may be of the same gender.

Violent acts examined include murder, rape, sexual assault,
robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Definitions of
these violent crimes are provided in the definitions section on
page 9.

Intimate partner violence in 1998

In 1998 women were victims in about 876,340 violent crimes and
men were victims in about 157,330 violent crimes committed by an
intimate partner . Women were victims of intimate partner
violence at a rate about 5 times that of males (767 versus 146
per 100,000 persons, respectively).

Women were more likely to be victimized by a nonstranger, which
includes a friend, family member, or intimate partner, while men
were more likely to be victimized by a stranger. Sixty-five
percent of all intimate partner violence against women and 68%
of intimate partner violence against men involved a simple
assault, the least serious form of violence studied.

In 1998 intimate partner homicides accounted for about 11% of
all murders nationwide. Of the 1,830 persons murdered by
intimates in 1998, 72% or 1,320 were women. Female murder
victims were substantially more likely than male murder victims
to have been killed by an intimate partner. In 1998 intimate
partner homicides comprised about 33% of the murders of women
but about 4% of the murders of men.

Trends in violence against intimate
partners, 1993-98

The rate of intimate partner violence against women decreased
21% from 1993 to 1998. The estimated number of violent crimes
against women by intimate partners decreased from the 1993 level
of about 1.1 million to 848,480 in 1997. The victimization rate
over the same period fell from 9.8 to 7.5 per 1,000 women. A
nominal but not statistically significant increase in female
intimate partner violence rates occurred from 1997 to 1998 (7.5
to 7.7 per 1,000 women) .

Intimate partner victimization rates for males were similar in
1993 and 1998 (1.6 and 1.5 men victimized per 1,000 males),
despite some fluctuation during intervening years. The rate of
victimization of male intimate partners in 1998 represented an
increase from 1.0 per 1,000 in 1997.

Homicide of intimate partners,
1976-98

Overall, the number of women killed by an intimate partner was
stable between 1976 and 1993 and then declined 23% between 1993
and 1997. The number of women murdered by an intimate partner
increased 8% between 1997 and 1998. The number of men murdered
by an intimate partner fell 60% from 1976 to 1998 (Highlights
figure, page 1 and page 10).

Most victims of intimate partner homicide are killed by their
spouses, although much less so in recent years. In 1998 murders
by spouses represented 53% of all intimate partner homicides,
down from 75% in 1976.

White females represent the only category of victims for whom
intimate partner homicide has not decreased substantially since
1976. The number of intimate partner homicides for all other
racial and gender groups declined during the period. The number
of black females killed by intimates dropped 45%; black males,
74%; and white males, 44%. Between 1997 and 1998 the number of
white females killed by an intimate partner increased 15%.

For additional information on trends of intimate partner
homicide, refer to the BJS website: http://www.ojp.usdoj.
gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm

Characteristics of intimate partner
violence victims, 1993-98

Regardless of the demographic characteristics considered, women
experienced intimate partner violence at higher rates than men
between 1993 and 1998.***The remainder of the report examines
nonlethal violent victimization, although inclusion of homicides
would not affect the findings.*** Among women, being black, young,
divorced or separated, earning lower incomes, living in rental
housing, and living in an urban area were all associated with
higher rates of intimate partner victimization between 1993 and
1998. Men who were young, black, divorced or separated, or
living in rented housing had significantly higher rates of
intimate partner violence than other men.
177 posted on 08/01/2002 9:33:52 AM PDT by punkit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: punkit; trussell; Violette
An Analysis of Official Crime Statistics [from Great Britain].

Excerpts:

"The definitional term "notifiable offences" which forms the basis of the figures broadly covers those more 'serious' offences - most indictable and triable either way offences are therefore included. Although the title of this series has changed from time to time, the types of offences covered have, by and large, remained consistent. Many offences of a minor nature are notifiable because of the legal category into which they fall, as opposed to the actual seriousness of the incident. For example, an incident in which a child forcibly takes something from another child could, if reported, be classified as a robbery. Bottomley and Pease [. . .] believe that such classifications are more the product of administrative value and convenience, rather than any careful consideration of the relative social and personal effects of the varying kinds of offence.

"Information about the "non-notifiable offences" is only available in the shape of figures of those persons which have actually been proceeded against. of these, less than one quarter faced indictable charges - with more than 50 per cent facing non-indictable motoring offences. Incredibly therefore, the official figures exclude those very offences which form the majority of the courts' workload. It can hardly be maintained then that these figures are a social barometer of the trends in illegal behaviour.

[. . .]

"However, two main methods have been used in order to highlight and indeed address some of inherent problems with official statistics - self-report studies and victim surveys. The main rationale of these studies was to uncover and attempt to quantify the much talked about "dark figure" which tends to cast a long shadow over the official sources - Wiles [. . .] believes, "...there is a dark figure of crime sufficiently large to render reported and recorded offences highly suspect as a basis upon which to make inferences upon criminal behaviour in general" [. . .].

"Self-report studies usually involve asking people to volunteer their past illegal actions either in response to a questionnaire or interview - these, unlike victim research, tend to pick up on private and victimless crimes. Various studies have revealed that between 50 and 90 per cent of people admit some kind of illegal behaviour, whether serious or trivial, that could result in a court appearance. Studies as far back as 1947 by Wallerstein and Wyle [. . .] reveal that 91 per cent of their sample admitted to imprisonable offences - indeed, even ministers of religion owned up to an average of 8.2 offences since they were 18!

"In Sweden, Elmhorn's [. . .] study of Stockholm schoolboys in the mid-Sixties showed that at least 57 per cent had committed at least one serious offence, of these 93 per cent had not been caught - overall, a total of 1,430 offences were revealed, with the true culprit known to the police in a mere 41 instances.

"However, these results are also subject to limitations in that respondents may often exaggerate or under report their delinquencies through dishonesty, bravado or simple forgetfulness. Be that as it may, these startling responses tend to reinforce the inadequacies of the official picture. In particular, the research clearly indicates that middle-class people are just as likely to commit crimes as their working-class counterparts - these studies throw into doubt, therefore, some of the definitive distinctions between the criminal and the non-criminal and especially the assumption that working-class individuals have a virtual monopoly of criminal activity.

[. . .]

"Victim surveys investigate the number of individuals who have been the victims of crime - victim responses in particular were designed to avoid the vagaries of the police figures, such that they could perhaps be made up into some form of "alternative and fuller" approach and so by implication providing a more valid and reliable outlook on the real figures.

"Not surprisingly, like the self-report studies above, the victim surveys also indicate clearly that the official figures are both unrepresentative of real crime [. . .] Furthermore, foreign studies such as the National Crime Victimisation Survey (NCVS) in the US show similar discrepancies between the official picture and the victim reports - where although recorded crime has risen by over 60% since 1973, the survey shows that people are now more than ever likely to report a crime - this is exacerbated by an ever-increasing ageing population, since evidence has shown that older people turn more readily to the police."

[Citations omitted.]

178 posted on 08/01/2002 10:05:09 AM PDT by Conagher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Conagher
In 1998 intimate partner homicides accounted for about 11% of all murders nationwide. Of the 1,830 persons murdered by intimates in 1998, 72% or 1,320 were women. Female murder victims were substantially more likely than male murder victims to have been killed by an intimate partner. In 1998 intimate partner homicides comprised about 33% of the murders of women but about 4% of the murders of men.

Yes, I can see the relevance of self-report statistics as it has been so often determined that many of these so-called victims have responded (albeit weakly) to these questionaires from their graves.

179 posted on 08/01/2002 10:17:02 AM PDT by punkit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: punkit
"Yes, I can see the relevance of self-report statistics as it has been so often determined that many of these so-called victims have responded (albeit weakly) to these questionaires [sic] from their graves."

From the same website:

"Firstly for a death to be classified as homicide, it has got to be known to have occurred - this means that a body has to be found, since virtually all killings where no body is found never end up classified as "homicide". Secondly, where a body does exist - it has to be judged as a death done by someone else - the authors ask "who knows how many homicides get no further than the enigmatic open verdict of the coroner?" Finally, once in court, a murder will be classified on the basis of evidence and this is not always available - either the evidence fails to get to court, or indeed fails to convince the jury beyond all reasonable doubt that a murder has occurred. At this somewhat confused point,the authors assert whether it is still sensible to ask about the country's murder rate?

"Hence, although the homicide figures would appear the most straightforward, this simple demonstration indicates how misleading they can be without closer examination - for it is a fact that only about one-third of those offences recorded as homicide actually are confirmed by the court as death by murder."

As long as we're engaging in stereotypes of men on this board, we might as well throw in the old stereotype of women poisoning their husbands. One wonders how many men expire from such treatment that never get reported.

180 posted on 08/01/2002 10:41:15 AM PDT by Conagher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-192 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson