Jasmine Peterson is a feminist who believes in men, and believes in equality for all. And she wants Valter Viglietti (and other men) to understand this.
This post is in response to The End of Feminism (as I Knew It)
I am a feminist. I love men. And as a feminist, I take deep offense to the insinuation that feminism is anti-male, or that its goal is only to advance the rights of women. That is not feminism as I understand or practice it, and as a member of a feminist organization, as a feminist who runs in feminist circles, and as a reader of feminist literature, this is not representative in any way of the feminists I know. Of course, that is not to say that there are not feminists who hate men, or who think women are superior beings. As with any heterogeneous group of people, beliefs will be held to varying degrees and may be expressed in a myriad of ways.
I agree with much of what Valter has said – men and women both have the capacity to be wonderful human beings, but we’re all fallible. As a feminist, I don’t think that women are superior in their morality, in their ability to nurture or to love, or in any other capacity. I don’t think men are superior in their ability to perform, to earn a living, or their ability to parent (I’m not trying to play into the gender binary with these capacities; just examples of how many people do femininity and masculinity, respectively).
Now, here is where our opinions seem to diverge. I want to understand men, and I want to support men. I want to help men to grow to their full capacities (outside of the ‘man box’), and to free men from oppression that they, too, face. And, as an activist, I engage in activities that are meant to address issues men face, in addition to women’s issues, so it really rather hurts me, and then kind of makes me angry, when I hear men suggesting that feminism is anti-male. Just like Valter really likes women, I really like and respect men (and women). In fact, I just have a huge respect for people, in general, which is why I work so hard in addressing inequalities wherever I see them.
♦◊♦
As a feminist I have been on the receiving end of a lot of anti-feminist backlash. A lot. My own partner, for a time, assumed the role of a masculinist in his opposition to my feminist ideology (we’ve since arrived at common ground, it seems, on the issue of feminism). The biggest concern seems to be that feminists assume that all men are guilty. Perhaps men have felt attacked by feminism. I get it. Acknowledging one’s own privilege (both male and female privilege) is a daunting task, because once acknowledged, if someone is concerned with equality, it means trying to let go of that privilege in creating a more equitable society. That can be pretty terrifying. And perhaps the discussions of privilege were initially quite heavily focused on male privilege, and this felt like a sentence of guilt. I get that, too. But in my experience, these discussions of privilege aren’t charging individual men, or women, as guilty parties; it’s merely about recognizing power structures in culture and how they contribute to inequalities so that we can find ways to empower marginalized groups. It’s not about blame. Similarly, talking about patriarchy, because of its perceived association to maleness, seems to make men cringe. Again, suggesting that patriarchy is a root cause of inequality is not an attack on men. Feminists, or all of the feminists I personally know, aren’t suggesting that the converse – matriarchy – is desirable. Patriarchy is as oppressive to men as it is to women. We’re not resisting men when we’re resisting patriarchy; we’re resisting inequality.
♦◊♦
What I’m curious to know is the type of feminists Valter has encountered, because they don’t seem to be anything like the numerous feminists I know. I’m not sure what kind of feminism it is that subscribes to the assumption that “To be a good man you need to always please (or never displease) women”. That doesn’t sound like any brand of feminism I’ve ever heard of, read about, or encountered. In fact, that’s decidedly not feminism. Feminists, in fact, want men to be free to be who they are, and to feel less encumbered by constructions of masculinity that might impose restrictions on how they express themselves. Feminists want men to feel free to express themselves in constructive ways. Feminists want men to be free to be their authentic selves. That doesn’t mean never displeasing women. People are certain to displease others, and no reasonable person would expect otherwise.
♦◊♦
I agree that not being able to own your thoughts is a terrible thing. I didn’t read the story to which Valter alludes, about the man who felt that his wife’s breasts were ‘ruined’, but I would assert that he should have the right to express his innermost thoughts and feelings without attack.
Women attacking this position isn’t akin to feminists inhibiting men’s authenticity. Firstly, Woman ≠ Feminist. And secondly, I think men and women should be able to freely express themselves. That doesn’t mean that upon doing so they’re not going to offend somebody, and won’t face reprisal. That’s part of authenticity – owning what you articulate. I have been subjected to tremendous amounts of reprisal simply for being feminist. That doesn’t mean I will stop being a feminist, or that I will dissociate myself from or call out an entire group who tend to engage in anti-feminist discourse. I have acknowledged that not everyone is feminist, that not everyone will agree with feminism, and that anti-feminist sentiment is deeply embedded within our culture. And it doesn’t mean that I think men should never displease women or should always make them happy. That’s not feminism.
Feminism is egalitarianism. Some people have even suggested that because of the many goals of feminism, it is time to change the name. I disagree (for a number of reasons that would make this more into a dissertation than a brief reply to Valter’s piece, so I won’t go into that here). Let me tell you, however, that feminism hasn’t changed from seeking equality to seeking ‘world domination’. In fact, feminism has grown into a movement that has accomplished great advancements in the status of women (although there is still work to be done), and has spread its reach to address inequalities of a number of marginalized and minority groups. Feminism is concerned with inequality, wherever it exists, and these goals are not in the slightest anti-male. Feminist researchers were the first to address masculinity as a health detriment in health research, out of concern for men’s health and greater morbidity. Feminists are concerned that young boys are subjected to gender policing more than young girls are, and the detriment this can have on their development. Feminists are concerned with men’s issues. That doesn’t sound anti-male to me. And let me just say, I absolutely love and appreciate every single male ally. Really.
Valter said: “In the end, I think this feminism’s “bias” might be its biggest failure. If you really believe in equality, then you care about everybody’s equality—not just for you or your kin.” The trouble is, this bias that you speak of doesn’t exist, except for perhaps among extremists, and it seems silly to generalize a prejudice against (or to dissociate yourself from) a whole group of people because of extremist factions.
—
photo by aklawstudio / flickr
Leave a Reply
417 Comments on "Toward Equality (For Everyone): A Response To ‘The End of Feminism (As I Knew It).’"
“I have and do listen. A lot.”
You don’t, only act like that. That’s not the same.
I’m not going to do any more of the back and forth. I’ve heard your points (repeatedly) and am not interested in arguing about whose conception of feminism is right and whose is wrong. I’d love to have a productive action-oriented conversation, but otherwise this is counterproductive and I am not interested in doing any more of the back and forth. Every point I address you will have a rebuttal. That’s not a productive mode of communication.
What Mark said.
I concur, Julie, that the internet has its limits. 🙂 And I also concur that there has been some talking past each other. It’s difficult when two people are staunchly rooted in a position to always be sensitive to the other.
If I weren’t in the process of attempting to finish up my 3-hour lecture to be given tomorrow, I’d certainly take you up on the shot offer. 🙂 If I finish it any time this evening, there will be a glass of vodka in my future. Cheers!
In fact, I invite and welcome just such a conversation – one where both participants genuinely wanted to listen and learn from the others’ viewpoint. There was a time when I would have fully participated in a conversation revolving around circular arguments. However, I’ve learned that it is entirely unproductive, and nobody walks away from such conversations feeling as though they’ve accomplished anything.
I responded to Mark below, but my shot offer still stands.
I’ve been watching this go on and while I’m sure there are things in both your arguments I could agree with, if we were in person, I’d stage some kind of humorous intervention like a shot drinking contest or a knitting circle.
You both seem to be talking past each other (in my opinion) and I bet that if the convo was a personal/in person one it wouldn’t have gone this long this far.
The internet has it’s limits, I always say (even though Lisa disagrees with me 😉
I’ll do a shot now if you will! I’ve got me some bourbon!
I wonder how this conversation might play out in person. As it stands, I find you to be reinforcing all of my assertions about its nonproductivity.
I should also point out that you have been attempting to dismiss me as “not a productive mode of communication” right from my very first comment to you. You have yet to even acknowledge, let alone address a single point I have made, instead trying to pretend you are above me. Hows that for not listening.
You are entirely ignoring what I am saying and what I have said, selectively taking pieces that you wish to hear, and then interpreting them in ways that fit your vision of what I am saying and what feminism means. When I’m not being heard, I don’t care to continue a conversation.
“not interested in arguing about whose conception of feminism is right and whose is wrong.”
Really? Why did you write a article defending feminism? Sorry, but the rest of the world’s perception of feminism is based on the history of the movement and the views and actions of feminists themselves.
What is not productive is refusing to see what most people see and not even being willing to open mindedly analyze why feminism has a solid reputation for being anti-male, among women and men.
Look at the jezebel article in which the team of contributors at jezebel laugh about beating their boyfriends.
It’s pretty clear what is going on. Feminism teaches men can’t be victims because it applies class-warfare labels to the genders: oppressor and victim. Therefore because men’s pain isn’t “systematic” it doesn’t matter.
Even when it can be shown by factual evidence that in fact 50% of DV is female inflicted and men are 4 times more prone to stranger violence even when you include rape.
http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have
Your argument lacks cogency, and I’m not following where you’re getting these bold assertions from. When and where did I say anything about men dropping out of fatherhood?
And still you’re missing the point (but illustrating my argument well). When you come to these discussions without a critical lens but rather with an anti-feminist lens, you’re likely to spend your time arguing, being defensive, and missing the entire point of the conversation. This is counterproductive.
I accidentally posted this here.
I’m not anti-feminist, I’m anti-discrimination and prejudice. That is my issue with the feminist movement. I can provide examples here.
Not that I’m aware. As anti-feminist as many MRA’s may be, I don’t think we are so much so as to dedicate our livelihoods to exposing what is so easily found. Plus, it really is a sad thing, to dedicate yourself to one big ongoing ad hominem attack upon a movement.
Are there manboobz style blogs for calling out the radfems?
Google for the “Agent orange files” Jasmine if you want to see a taste of some of the radfems.
Archy, there’s no use pal. She doesn’t even admit the existence of fgynocentrist feminists.
According to her estimation, all of feminism is “wonderful.” Her word.
Thank-you, hopefully your feminism wins out vs the gynocentrics. The thing I see the most is many voices desperate to be heard but unsure of where to go to speak. I truly hope they find their space, and hope I find that egalitarian feminist website one day:P
I am not against any group unless they/it adopts discriminatory and prejudiced views, which feminism has a history of.
If feminism denounces its anti-male views and philosophies and truly embraces equality, it would have my support.
You’ve clearly come to the conversation from a place of bias, and therefore the manner in which you interpret things IS coloured by the lenses you’re wearing. If it were veracious that you were not biased or anti-feminist, you wouldn’t have come to the conversation on the defensive. You are STILL generalizing, and you are still speaking in reductionist terms.
Pot, meet kettle.
Not at all. As I said, I can provide many examples of feminist written articles of anti-male prejudice right here. That’s not bias. That’s the sad reality.
Observing prejudice and discrimination and noting that it’s prejudice and discrimination is not bias; it’s noting a fact. There’s nothing defensive about noting facts. If anything the prejudice that has been documented is Offensive, not defensive.
Jasmine, I’m not asking you to stop being feminist, just recognize the current and historic bias and misandry in within the feminist movement, stop pretending it doesn’t exist, and denounce it. The rest of the world sees it. Denying it is reminiscent of the emperor in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”
I’m not asking you to be feminist, or to even stop being anti-feminist. I’m merely asserting that conversations are more productive when you set your biases aside (or at least recognize and mitigate them) so as to have productive conversations.
Ms. Jasmine, you wrote in response to a gentleman who dropped feminism for the same reasons I and most women and men never get involved in the first place.
I have and do listen. A lot. The author of this article (me) did not walk away from the feminist movement. I’m still feminist. As feminist as I was the day I wrote this article. 🙂
Of course. It must be the feminists. In your interactions with people, who’s the common denominator? Perhaps try being more receptive to others, and you might find that your preconceptions are quite inaccurate indeed.
True. Hence, the problem with feminism/ts
The worst part is when someone is espousing prejudice but refuses to acknowledge it. It makes moving forward more than difficult.
Please. Thank you. I’m disturbed by the support and defense of prejudice and discrimination.
Circular argument. Extricating myself to get something more productive done.
What about da wimminz?
That’s truly how it is when viewed through a feminist gynocentric anti-male prism.
yup. She uses the standard shaming tactics of “if you are against feminism, you must not women to have rights” as if that’s the only possible reason to be against feminism, and it’s methods (such as the denial of male victimization she uses in this very post, or the constant use of just this kind of shaming attacks) and anti-male theories (like patriarchy theory or the very objectification theory she puts forth, again, in this post) play no part in opposition to, or dislike of, feminism.
Neither the theory of patriarchy nor objectification theory are anti-male (although there are many misconceptions about each theory that might lend to an anti-male interpretation). In fact, objectification theory also applies to the objectification of male bodies, an increasing phenomenon in our media and culture.
Feminism has built its reputation of being anti-male over several decades. It’s well known. There’s been ample opportunity to prove what it’s about.
If feminism was not anti-male and truly an equality movement it would be supported by more than a small minority of women and an even smaller minority of men.
I’m not going to engage, Eric. I understand you’re coming from a place of mistrust of feminism. The things you’ve described feminism to be just aren’t feminism in my experience in feminist circles.
Doing the same thing seldom yields different results. As long as the anti-male agenda feminists are welcomed, supported, and defended, those who choose to identify with the movement are making a statement of support and agreement with their ideologies. Hence, their anti-male agenda will continue to define the movement.
My comments are based on experience in discussion and reading feminist views, theories, arguments, and perspectives. It’s experience not mistrust.
I don’t doubt that your experience is different. As I said above, those inside feminist circles see things very differently than men and women in general do.
Whether it’s a monlith or not doesn’t make much difference since even the most ardent man-haters are welcome in the movement.
“I’m merely suggesting that you’re applying a very general and reductionist view of feminism to a movement that is not at all monolithic.”
Aren’t you doing the same in your denial of his assertions and experiences?
And I am also speaking from experience, and your assertions don’t match my experience. I’m merely suggesting that you’re applying a very general and reductionist view of feminism to a movement that is not at all monolithic.
I think it’s time someone made a true egalitarian feminist website. Would be very helpful as a goto place to understand it all better, I’ve tried n tried to understand it but I keep coming across radicals and gynocentrics and it’s annoying as hell. I hope I just suck at finding stuff:P
I haven’t seen much of either type of website – egalitarian feminist or the radical/gynocentric version (but I don’t have a lot of time to peruse the world wide web, which might be why). If I had the time and the know-how I would create such an internet space. Perhaps in a few years when I’m done with graduate school I will undertake such a task. 🙂
Thanks for ensuring the gender neutral language, I feel that will really help especially with the highschools. The earlier on that people can learn anyone can be a victim, or a perp I think the more we will see support for everyone as it undoes the current biases in society. It’s very encouraging to know there are those who see all of the angles and not just the stereotypes!
Your perception of feminism doesn’t ring true for what I have experienced and the work that I do as a feminist. To suggest that feminism is anti-male is as generalizing and reductionist as it is to suggest that men’s rights activists are anti-female and anti-feminist.
I’d also say it’s only some parts of feminism, it appears to be 2 separate monoliths if anything. 1 gynocentric and the other is egalitarian based on what I’ve experienced.
I haven’t seen an egalitarian “part” of feminism where there is no subscription to many of the same classic feminist tenets.
Ironically, the truly egalitarian feminists are often ostracised and deemed anti-feminist by other feminists, such as with Christina Hoff Sommers (see wikipedia, where she identifies as a feminist on the page specifically on her, but is deemed anti-feminist on the feminism page). But they do exists, albeit rare.
It’d be good for every feminist to see that Eric and Mark. If Christina cops so much flack whereas radicals are ignored then there is a major problem. I see christians, muslims, etc call out the radicals and denounce their actions, it would be quite heartening to see some feminist leaders call out the radfemhub stuff and any other misandrous bullshit.
Mark – very strong and valid point. I hadn’t thought of it that way. They, in essence, try to kick Ms. Sommers out of feminism thusly but refuse to do the same for even the most ardent man-haters.
Says a great deal indeed.
What’s more, despite the fact many feminists openly reject her as a feminist, claiming her to be anti-feminist, they rarely do the same for radicals, whom they identify as fringe or a separate branch of feminism. IE, radicals, while not the same, are still feminists, but Ms Sommers, who is egalitarian, clearly is not. Says a great deal, that does.
Thanks for your comment/correction. Ms. Sommers does seem to be for equality. She rejects many of the unequal, anti-male theories and philosophies that many so-called egalitarian feminists embrace, support, and defend.
I can see why feminists call her anti-feminist. She’s pro-equality.
I have to agree, why is it so rare, actually I can’t remember anyone calling out gynocentric feminists like Jody?
“What about the poor male white guy?” How is this not shaming and insulting language? It infers that being male and white with problems mean’s the problems are trivial.
I mean, have to agree with Mark on
“The very fact you choose to challenge me, and fail to point out to Judy her flawed interpretations (as she uses both theories in anti-male ways within her post) only demonstrates my point.”
You don’t seem interested in shedding your misconception of feminism (“No doubt, in their own ways that come off as anti-male…”). I’ve provided you with exactly the information you asked for. And now back to working on my thesis I go.
“You don’t seem interested in shedding your misconception of feminism.”
I was hoping that you would provide factual information to support your arguments. If I have any misconceptions, factual data could easily prove it. However, all you’ve shared is your opinion that men dominate everything, have all the money, male behavior causes problems, etc.
By the way, my perception of feminism is shared by the vast majority of women (and men), which is why most women reject being with it.
I offered to provide you with scholarly articles; you dismissed this with your statement, which is why I didn’t bother.
Feminism is largely misunderstood at the cultural level. I am aware that many women do eschew the term feminism. However, when you actually speak to these women and get down to their actual beliefs, it’s not feminism that they’re rejecting but the misapprehensions about feminism.
“I offered to provide you with scholarly articles; you dismissed this with your statement,”
I did not dismiss the posting of any feminist scholarly articles that show true concern for males, for their sake, not based on how issues regarding them may affect females. Feel free to post any such links.
“Feminism is largely misunderstood at the cultural level.”
Women reject what they see and hear from feminists themselves. I personally respect the intelligence of women, and therefore don’t for a second believe that after decades of feminism’s existence that they are too dense or ignorant to understand it.
This 2012. If there is evidence to support your argument, at least something to point to would be available on the Internet. It wouldn’t all be locked up in text books.
I’ve not even remotely implied that women who reject feminism are ignorant. My experience has been that women often think they’re rejecting feminism, but when you sit down and converse about it, it’s actually the culturally held belief about what feminism is and how it functions that they’re balking at. Their ideas are congruent with feminist ideals of equality, and they’re often shocked to discover that feminism isn’t about burning bras or misandry.
Also, I don’t have links. As I mentioned, these are articles in scholarly journals. I can provide you a list of references, if you so desire.
Instead of: “No doubt, in their own ways that come of as anti-male, in the views of most men and most women.”
No doubt. Feminism has addressed these issues in ways that come off as anti-male in the view of most men and women.
Gee whiz, I wish I could retract that last post as both the mens sites listed DO allow women to speak.
I done stepped into it in my vigor for mansplaining.
Apologies given
[…] of the articles from the Project are specifically about the gender discussion. Others hit on topics not limited to gender at all. Each article is interesting, thoughtful and, I […]
Jasmine, Joanna, Lori et all.
I have a haven up specifically for you guys because I feel you’re doing your best to understand the other side.
Please look up “Circle Of Fire” and go there. I’ll make sure a discussion between us is possible.
Thank you.
Good stuff, Eagle.
Adi, sorry, but that doesn’t work. You’ve used your axiom of some elements of a group having one characteristic to prove that all of the group shares that characteristic.
By your logic you and I, as MRAs, are misogynistic because some MRAs are.
Patriarchy doesn’t suggest that all women are oppressed and men are not. It recognizes that power lies in the hands of few men, and that privilege of those over whom this power is held is transient. It varies on when and how we experience privilege and oppression. And it is certainly not theorized to be a phenomenon experienced only by women!
Power does not only reside in the hands of “few men.” Hence, the feminist patriarchy theory is wrong. There are plenty of women with power, and many women have more power than men, increasingly so now. For example, in the United States, there are more women managers than men. Women have lower employment, are victims of crime and murder less often, and receive better and more education.
Hence, the feminist term “patriarchy” and how it is applied is wrong and misplaced; hence, it is just an attack on maleness.
Just to amend that, it’s not to say that those who are oppressors are only men; there are some women in positions of power. As a social constructionist, discussions of power are really complicated, because I want to convey my thoughts in a manner accessible to all, but it’s a highly convoluted relationship. Power is transient, and it functions through complicity. Patriarchy isn’t about individuals (which means that no, we’re not blaming men or excluding men from discussions of oppression); it’s an institution.
Yes, but even if that were justifiable for *some* women, as their incomes were superfluous, but the problem with these en masse firings of women is that you never knew what a woman’s income was for or her situation. There could be a man working whose family had tons of money, and there could be a widow working to feed her children, or a daughter whose father is out of work.
Systematic oppression ignores individual stories, and therefore individual rights. Gender equality or nothing.
I’m sure there’s plenty of examples of individual suffering cause by such decisions. But they were desperate measures for desperate times. I’m sure if it had been possible to micro-manage such rules to ensure only the women who didn’t need jobs were fired they would have. I don’t think its any accident that the most “patriarchal” societies are usually the most threatened ones and I find it hard to conceive of gender roles as anything more than a survival tactic.
Also, speaking of reading feminist articles… do you know how many so-called “feminists” I’ve encountered who don’t even know who Andrea Dworkin, Mary Daly, or bell hooks even *are*? They’re only peripherally aware of the likes of say Gloria Steinem either.
I guess it’s sorta like the atheist who knows what the Bible actually *says* better than the Christian.
“I believe that most feminists are decent people and that there is a lot of common ground between feminism and the men’s rights movement.”
This!
Thanks to Jasmine for responding to all the comments and so on. I know how frustrating and difficult it can be to do that from my time on traditional feminist boards.
Jody says:
January 16, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Where did people first feel feminism is bad?
I think, it was in this moment where feminists started to demand special privileges and rights, because ‘women are different’. – It’s about men and women are equal, but we women are even a little bit more equal than you men…
“Where did people first feel feminism is bad? Where did the idea form in the male mind? Can they even pinpoint a point?”
For me, it started when a now ex-friend of mine said she became a feminist and wanted to be referred to, in print, as a “womyn” since “woman” has “man” in it, which she found offensive.
Now where, oh where is the “patriarchal society and porn culture” in that, hmm? Can you even pinpoint it?
I wrote an article on the redefinition of rape and how it excludes men as victims of females; not all feminists overlooked the work that still needs to be done, and those victims excluded by this redefinition.
And I am a feminist. Advocating for men’s rights and addressing issues that affect men are feminist issues.
I can see you will be very popular here Jody 🙂
Welcome.
Feminism is responsible for its own reputation. After several decades, if feminism truly was about fairness and equality, there would be abundant evidence to prove it. There isn’t. I have asked repeatedly for evidence of feminism being an equality movement, and all I have ever been given are repeated unsubstantiated claims. By contrast, there is plenty of evidence of feminism being anti-male, including here.
If one doesn’t/can’t see the anti-male and misandristic attitudes, theories, and views that are common within feminism apparently is in agreement with them. There are thousands of examples of such right here in comments and articles, including, for example, the many claims that all men are somehow complicit in rape, and that virtually all married men are rapists of their own wives (Accidental Rapist).
*Veracious. Must remember to edit my comments BEFORE posting!
Why not list some websites featuring self proclaimed feminists who share your brand of feminism? I think this would be much more helpful than constantly saying so many commenters here are wrong in what they’re telling you about feminism.
Excellent advice. I do not know even one feminist webpage sharing the opinion of Jasmine.
But there are many which are exactly the opposite of what she says…
For example, a typical feminist slander page against MRAs claiming MRAs agitate for rape and assault…Are MRAs concerned about anything other than raping and beating women?
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/10/explainer-whats-mra.html
Exactly. Most of the feminist sites I’ve seen sure don’t look like anything Jasmine is describing.
Isn’t it nice that at the same time Jasmine is saying that feminists do like men, do listen to men, and are concerned about the rights of men, she’s dismissing every point men make and ignoring the evidence we present to back up our claims as ‘anecdotes’?
On one hand, I can understand her staunch, knee-jerk defensiveness. She’s seeing feminism attacked and feels attacked herself since she considers herself a feminist. It’s only natural to defend yourself when attacked. But in doing so, she’s doing exactly what she’s claiming feminists don’t do.
LBC, it will be a cold day in hell when Jasmine responds to your points with specific examples and citations. She made it quite clear in an earlier post that she feels she has no responsibility to engage in evidence-based argumentation, merely assertion-based argumentation, leaving it to those of us who disagree with her to come up with the evidence to prove her point, or search in vain for a long, long time.
Lisa, I hate to say it, but I think you’ve been the victim of a con.