Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Gender equality....to what extent?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Gender equality....to what extent?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:44 pm Post subject:

calicoe wrote:

Fox wrote:

calicoe wrote:

Fox, please revisit the 2008 election campaign and all that was said about Hillary Clinton, by both the media and certain members of the electorate. Please look at how Pelosi has been portrayed by certain male-dominated media outlets. Enough said.

Please recognize that despite a few juvenille comments, these are two of the most powerful women in the world. This is a discussion about opportunity, after all, and these women have highlighted that women have the opportunity to go quite far in our society. I don't think that can be taken away from simply because a few idiots made some inane sexist comments. Inane comments are never going to go away.

These women are proof of feminism's success, not proof of it still having a long way to go.

That's right, so please remember that even the most powerful women in the world can be affected by it.

calicoe wrote:

Both of these women, despite their obvious intelligence and competencies, have largely benefitted from being the spouses and or daughter/sister/friend of powerful men. Also, those "few juvenille comments" came from the most powerful corners of the GOP, who easily manipulated the other component - voters.

The GOP is a hold-out of ignorance and hostility, no argument there.

calicoe wrote:

I am not questioning the progress or their status as powerful women, but merely showing you a glaring example when you wonder aloud as to why there are not more elected female politicians.

If your claim is that, "There aren't more female politicians because sometimes people say mean things about them because they're women," I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree. Those sexist comments from the GOP helped Clinton, not hurt her, and they help Pelosi. As a female politician, someone making a sexist comment about you is a political goldmine in a society that's over 50% female. It helps motivate female voters, it gets you media attention, and it gives you a very effective basis from which to attack your opponent. So please, stop pretending that occasional sexist comments are what sink female politicians. They don't.

calicoe wrote:

Things have changed. There are more women now in traditionally male trades. However, that was because of feminists calling out the historical male-dominated clubbiness and discrimination that I described above.

I agree. They came, they did a good job, and they succeeded. Now, the comparatively rare woman that wants to join those trades can. Mission accomplished.

calicoe wrote:

I think you really assume too much here. The negative aggression of violent crimes is completely different than the kind of assertive qualities necessary in a leader.

calicoe wrote:

Secondly, your analysis of females as students assumes that being quiet and docile is part of being a good student. I have news for you: thinking brains challenge by asking questions, adding a point of view, and dissenting.

All things totally irrelevent to college admission. College admission is earned through grades and testing, which are both -- at a high school level -- achieved through rote regurgitation of facts. After actual entry into college these things begin to play more of a role. Before then, all that matters is sitting there, quietly memorizing facts, and being able to reproduce those facts on demand. Dissenting especially is something totally irrelevent to high school grades and test scores.

calicoe wrote:

At least, that's how I was as a female student ...

And again, this comes to the crux of it. "That's not how I am." Like aboxofchocolates, this matter is unfortunately personal for you. This isn't about you, though, it's about the requirements for entry into college. If you do want to make it about you, though, I'm happy to hear about any opportunities you feel you lack specifically because you're a woman.

calicoe wrote:

but I'm not sure where you went to school. Females are also generally better with language and communication, two traits essential to being a good student and a good leader.

I agree females are generally better with language and communication. in fact, strange how I can admit to things women are better at than men, but the women in this thread find themselves strangely unable to admit that men might do something better than women, shy physical things.

I'm going to give you a challenge now. Please list for me 5 non-physical things that men are on average better at then women. I'll start with 5 admittances of things women are better at than men:

1) Lingusitics
2) Studying
3) Writing
4) Empathizing
5) Multitasking

Show me some intellectual honesty. 5 non-physical things you believe men do better than women. You keep talking about things women do better than men, let's see some of the reverse.

calicoe

Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Location: South Korea

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:31 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

That's just it; they weren't affected by it. Despite these comments, they remain very powerful women with immense sway and influence over our nation's politics. There's a difference between someone making a stupid comment directed at you, and being affected by said stupid comment.

Fox, Hillary could've lost the election over it, and Pelosi was able to get into her position via her friend's affiliation to a dead member of Congress.

calicoe wrote:

I am not questioning the progress or their status as powerful women, but merely showing you a glaring example when you wonder aloud as to why there are not more elected female politicians.

If your claim is that, "There aren't more female politicians because sometimes people say mean things about them because they're women," I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree. Those sexist comments from the GOP helped Clinton, not hurt her, and they help Pelosi. As a female politician, someone making a sexist comment about you is a political goldmine in a society that's over 50% female.

Fox, we are not talking about "saying mean things" - how condescending! We are talking about manipulating public opinon for VOTES in an election. The GOP has had it out for Hillary for years.

calicoe wrote:

I think you really assume too much here. The negative aggression of violent crimes is completely different than the kind of assertive qualities necessary in a leader.

And yet, they come from a very similar source. You say I assume too much, but I suspect that's simply because you don't want to admit there may well be valid reason for more men than women succeeding in leadership.

"Valid"? You think having more testostorone is a valid reason and the determining quality of leadership? You do need a lot of money and crony politics to run for office in the U.S., though - look at Sarah Palin. However, there are women who have been successful and powerful in their own right, but more recently than men. As they build a new powerbase and as women gain entry to bigger pieces of the economic and corporate power structures on their own steam, there will be more powerful female politicians. Simple as that.

calicoe wrote:

All things totally irrelevent to college admission.

Except, in this instance we weren't talking about college admission, but about the qualities that make good leaders and politcians.

calicoe wrote:

At least, that's how I was as a female student ...

calicoe wrote:

but I'm not sure where you went to school. Females are also generally better with language and communication, two traits essential to being a good student and a good leader.

I agree females are generally better with language and communication. in fact, strange how I can admit to things women are better at than men, but the women in this thread find themselves strangely unable to admit that men might do something better than women, shy physical things.

I'm going to give you a challenge now. Please list for me 5 non-physical things that men are on average better at then women. I'll start with 5 admittances of things women are better at than men:

1) Lingusitics
2) Studying
3) Caring for Children
4) Empathizing
5) Multitasking

Show me some intellectual honesty. 5 non-physical things you believe men do better than women. You keep talking about things women do better than men, let's see some admittances.

I know good male linguists, and caretakers, who are also very empathetic, many are gay though, but they're still men. I have to agree on the multitasking, lol.

1. For the most part, males are physically stronger than women. That is not a conspiracy, but a fact. I have known some physically very tall and muscular women who work out to compensate for this difference, who may or may not be qualified to work as a firefighter, but they would definitely qualify to work as a forest firefighter in a national forest. Again, there are exceptions, and they shouldn't be punished, just as male teachers and caretakers shouldn't be punished.

2. Males score better on college entrance exams. Score!

3. Males have larger brains, and larger IPL's (left, mathmetical and spatial functions), but females have more nerve connectors and use more parts of the brain when they think.

4. Males are generally "better" or better represented in technical math and science fields, but again, this could also be impacted somewhat by socialization, although males do have a clear advantage as stated above in point 3.

5. Males can tolerate the cold better? Men can drink more beer? Yes, they can act more decisively than women, but that is not always a good thing (except in sexual attraction, as far as I'm concerned). I definitely like that they will take over fixing the stereo and hooking up the internet, and I'm not threatened because I know I can win the arguments, lol.

Is that honest enough?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:07 am Post subject:

calicoe wrote:

Fox, Hillary could've lost the election over it, and Pelosi was able to get into her position via her friend's affiliation to a dead member of Congress.

No, Hillary did not lose the election over it. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that irritates me about modern feminism. "If only a few guys on the political Right hadn't made some sexist comments, Clinton would have won!" Yeah right. The Obama Campaign was one of the most effective and organized campaigns in American history, if not the most effective and organizied campaign in American history. By contrast, the Clinton Campaign was frankly rubbish, and treated the primary as a foregone conclusion. That is what cost Clinton the election.

calicoe wrote:

Fox, we are not talking about "saying mean things" - how condescending! We are talking about manipulating public opinon for VOTES in an election. The GOP has had it out for Hillary for years.

Calicoe, the kind of person who would even consider voting in a Democratic Primary Election really doesn't take politicians on the Right very seriously. The idea that their comments had a substantial sway on the election is patently ridiculous. Beyond that, while yes, the GOP has had it out for Hillary Clinton for years, they've had it out for almost every prominent Democrat for years. So what? They hate Democrats, and they hate on Democrats. It's what they do. You're not going to win me over on this one, as you're essentially arguing, "Clinton, who had an outright inferior campaign to Obama, would have won if only some guys from the other party hadn't made a few juvenille remarks about her based on her gender." Clinton lost that primary for herself.

calicoe wrote:

"Valid"? You think having more testostorone is a valid reason and the determining quality of leadership?

I didn't say anything about testosterone, you're the only one who has been (pejoratively, mind you) flinging that word around. I'm not interested in discussing the biological reasons for the differences between the genders. All that matters with regards to this discussion is said differences, and their results.

calicoe wrote:

As they build a new powerbase and as women gain entry to bigger pieces of the economic and corporate power structures on their own steam, there will be more powerful female politicians. Simple as that.

I think it's unlikely, but we'll see. If you like, we can make a gentlemen's wager about it. Let's see how things stand in 50 years.

calicoe wrote:

Except, in this instance we weren't talking about college admission, but about the qualities that make good leaders and politcians.

We were talking about good students (as defined by students who are most likely to be admitted to college) vs good leaders (as defined by the leaders people are most willing to vote into office). I thought that was fairly clear based on the context of the discussion.

calicoe wrote:

Uhm, huh? I am using a personal observation to talk about substantiated points. What the heck are you talking about???

Needless to say, how you are as a student is not in any way necessarily indicative of how most women are as students, so your personal observation is not particularly relevent to the case. I don't think you can honestly say most women are like you in that regard. You seem fairly exceptional.

calicoe wrote:

I know good male linguists, and caretakers, who are also very empathetic, many are gay though, but they're still men. I have to agree on the multitasking, lol.

I know them as well. We're discussing averages though, not outliers.

calicoe wrote:

1. For the most part, males are physically stronger than women. That is not a conspiracy, but a fact. I have known some physically very tall and muscular women who work out to compensate for this difference, who may or may not be qualified to work as a firefighter, but they would definitely qualify to work as a forest firefighter in a national forest. Again, there are exceptions, and they shouldn't be punished, just as male teachers and caretakers shouldn't be punished.

Remember I said non-physical. I'll let it go though. And I agree any woman physically capable of such work should be allowed to do it, assuming she wouldn't be taking the position of a more capable man. Having a fair shot at a position isn't the same as being entitled to it, after all.

calicoe wrote:

2. Males score better on college entrance exams. Score!

This is true, and it's something I think should be considered carefully when paired with the data about more women being admitted to colleges than men. It should also be noted that this remains true despite the fact that a writing section was added to the SAT specifically to give females a boost; the disparity in scoring used to be larger. But, wondering at the motivations of college entry boards and entrance exam formulators is beyond the scope of the discussion I suppose.

calicoe wrote:

3. Males have larger brains, and larger IPL's (left, mathmetical and spatial functions), but females have more nerve connectors and use more parts of the brain when they think.

4. Males are generally "better" or better represented in technical math and science fields, but again, this could also be impacted somewhat by socialization, although males do have a clear advantage as stated above in point 3.

Points 3 and 4 are essentially the same point, but I'll split mathematics and sciences into two fields. So men are better at math and science, okay.

calicoe wrote:

5. Males can tolerate the cold better? Men can drink more beer? Yes, they can act more decisively than women, but that is not always a good thing (except in sexual attraction, as far as I'm concerned). I definitely like that they will take over fixing the stereo and hooking up the internet, and I'm not threatened because I know I can win the arguments, lol.

I'll take decisiveness from this. One should bear in mind that, while you -- and frankly, I -- might not feel decisiveness is always a good thing, it is something people find attractive in leaders, which again helps explain the dominant presence of men in business and political leadership.

calicoe wrote:

Is that honest enough?

Yes. It's not quite what I asked for, but it's close enough. The point I wanted to make is this: I feel like feminists in general are very, very prone to immediately assume any pro-female disparity is merit based, and any pro-male disparity is based in oppression. Even just looking at the things you've listed, though, we have some components for explaining quite a few potential disparities without appealing to sexism or oppression at all.

Equality of opportunity is an important thing, and I think we more or less have it. Anything a man or woman wants to become, they can, assuming they are sufficiently competent. That doesn't mean they'll succeed at the same rate, and it doesn't mean they'll choose to go into given fields at the same rate. As long as there are no artificial barriers, though, I think we have little basis to reall talk about oppression. Sure, sometimes people make sexist remarks, but people make all kinds of inane remarks. There are a lot of assholes out there, frankly, and I don't think they can be used to represent the norm.

Feminism has succeeded in our society, and as a result, some of the most influential people in our society are female. They aren't being held back, and their opinions help drive our nation's policies. I'm honestly at a loss for what more feminism really feels it has to accomplish. Less domestic abuse and rape? Unlikely as long as men are more likely to be criminal in general. Completely equal pay based on an arbitrary statistic that ignores factors like actual hours worked, senority, past qualification, and actual quality of performance? Unlikely, because those other things are factors. 50% of the Senate being made up of women? Well, I've said what I think of that all ready, and we really can't criticize voters for voting in whoever they like. The fact that there are female Senators, House Members, and Governors -- as well as female apointees in some of our most important political positions -- shows that there really aren't barriers though.

You guys got what you wanted, and I'm happy you did, because I think it makes us all better off. Why is that so hard to accept?

seonsengnimble

Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:27 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

I'll start with 5 admittances of things women are better at than men:

1) Lingusitics
2) Studying
3) Writing
4) Empathizing
5) Multitasking

Show me some intellectual honesty. 5 non-physical things you believe men do better than women. You keep talking about things women do better than men, let's see some of the reverse.

I agree with all but number 3. Do you mean handwriting, prose, poetry or persuasive writing? Aside from handwriting, the rest are pretty subjective, and in my opinion, I have yet to read a female author who I enjoy more or find more eloquent than other male authors.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:50 am Post subject:

seonsengnimble wrote:

Fox wrote:

Actually if you notice calicoe's post, #3 was originaly child care. But, being my thoughtful self, I thought child care might be a bit objectionable to certain individuals here, and in light of this changed it to writing. Notice that while boys score meaningfully higher on reading and dominantly higher on math, girls score dominantly higher on writing. So, that's the kind of writing I mean; the kind that was added to the SAT exam specifically to raise girl's test scores as compared to boys (and it worked, but not enough to even out the scores, so I've little doubt we can expect another addition to the SAT in the not-to-distant future, as soon as they figure out another category of questions that might serve to even out those obviously sexist scores). I believe it consists of short essay questions, with an emphasis on grammar usage and word choice.

I've yet to read a female author who I enjoy more or find more eloquent than other male authors either, but evidently in some technical sense, girls are better writers than boys. Bear in mind that male fiction writers have the benefit of editors, so it's hard to know exactly how good a given novel writer's grammar and vocabularly really are. Author's provide ideas, and editors are there to catch the mistakes.

.38 Special

Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:22 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

I've yet to read a female author who I enjoy more or find more eloquent than other male authors either, but evidently in some technical sense, girls are better writers than boys. Bear in mind that male fiction writers have the benefit of editors, so it's hard to know exactly how good a given novel writer's grammar and vocabularly really are. Author's provide ideas, and editors are there to catch the mistakes.

So you're saying you haven't read a single female author that you "enjoy more" than any of the many male authors out there. So because Plath cannot compare to Elliot, male writers are somehow more "enjoyable" or more "eloquent" except in "some technical sense?" Just clarifying, champ...

Interesting supposition you make: Female writers do not have editors. Care to elaborate?

.38 Special

Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:36 pm Post subject:

aboxofchocolates wrote:

.38 Special wrote:

A wise man and a fool argue in a meadow.

A stranger walks by and sees two fools.

Shocked

Which fool is prettier?

Well, this particular stranger saw a most-swoonable fool arguing with a closed-minded fool who believes that fashionable politics justify bigotry.

But, looking at the number of reads this thread has (and it is increasing at ever slower rates), I'd say a great many strangers were sufficiently turned off to neglect contributing to the.... "discussion."

seonsengnimble

Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:59 pm Post subject:

.38 Special wrote:

Oh, come now. Sure, there are plenty of male writers who are garbage and female writers who are great. However, for many people, myself included, when listing the authors they enjoy the most, no females make it on the list. This is more a matter of taste than quantifiable skill, however.

I don't believe Fox is saying that female authors don't have editors. What I believe he is saying is that because both male and female authors have editors, word choice and grammar errors don't show up in published work.

calicoe

Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Location: South Korea

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:02 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

seonsengnimble wrote:

Fox wrote:

1. Notice that while boys score meaningfully higher on reading and dominantly higher on math, girls score dominantly higher on writing.

2. So, that's the kind of writing I mean; the kind that was added to the SAT exam specifically to raise girl's test scores as compared to boys (and it worked, but not enough to even out the scores, so I've little doubt we can expect another addition to the SAT in the not-to-distant future, as soon as they figure out another category of questions that might serve to even out those obviously sexist scores). I believe it consists of short essay questions, with an emphasis on grammar usage and word choice.

3. I've yet to read a female author who I enjoy more or find more eloquent than other male authors either, but evidently in some technical sense, girls are better writers than boys. Bear in mind that male fiction writers have the benefit of editors, so it's hard to know exactly how good a given novel writer's grammar and vocabularly really are. Author's provide ideas, and editors are there to catch the mistakes.

1. Sources? Here are mine:

-Boys and girls learn differently: a guide for teachers and parents - Google Michael Gurian, Patricia Henley, Terry Trueman - 2001 - Education

"Girls are approximately one and a half years ahead of boys in reading and writing competency, according to statistics tracked by the federal Department of Education. The girls' reading advantage exists at all levels, not just the highest." P. 56

-The Truth About Boys and Girls
http://www.educationsector.org/research/research_show.htm?doc_id=378705

"In general, girls outperform boys in reading and writing by greater margins than boys outperform girls in math, science, and geography.
But this is nothing new. Girls have scored better than boys in reading for as long as the long-term NAEP has been administered."

"Women are, however, more likely to graduate from college once they get there."

-Where the Girls ARe: The Facts About Gender Equity in Education, 2008
www.aauw.org/research/upload/whereGirlsAre_execSummary.pdf girl and boys scores on college entrance exams

"Similarly, boys overall have outperformed girls on both
the math and verbal portions of the SAT. Disaggregated by family
income level, however, the male advantage on the verbal portion of
the SAT is consistently seen only among students from low-income
families."

2. Again, you seem to be implying that there is some sort of conspiracy going on, or that girls are getting some special advantage or privilege at the expense of boys. Let's be clear and rational, shall we?: The purpose of college entrance exams is to predict potential academic success at college. By all substantiated accounts, female academic performance is outstripping that of their male counterparts. Further, writing is an important skill for success, both at university and in professional life. Your point is therefore null and void.

3. Your personal preferences are exactly that - personal. The fact that male readers prefer male writers is not some observation of earth shattering proportions or even statistically significant, but rather, just predictable. The FACTS are that females do score better in those areas on exams, and also do well as professional writers in every other area. The question of whether they are commercially more successful than males would involve a whole other host of other questions that may also pertain to female politicians, such as bias, which you of course have a hard time believing exists.

edit: link

morrisonhotel

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:41 pm Post subject:

seonsengnimble wrote:

So, few people would list, say, Austen or one of the Bronte sisters amongst their favourite novelists?

.38 Special

Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:08 pm Post subject:

morrisonhotel wrote:

seonsengnimble wrote:

So, few people would list, say, Austen or one of the Bronte sisters amongst their favourite novelists?

I'll give Morrison (although he is a communist Wink

) the benefit of a doubt and agree that men will most likely respond to a male writer. This is, at the least, my experience.

But that isn't what Fox said. He said that no woman delivers the same enjoyable experience for him as male writers do. I enjoyed Austen (she has a wit to her that is unmistakable), but I have read many male authors -- prominent ones -- who simply do not match her or many female authors.

But that's my opinion. It is neither expert nor universal. I'm just another male-chauvinist-feminist-apologist, we are a dime a dozen. Especially in that hive of ignorance and prejudice known as the GOP Wink

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:27 pm Post subject:

.38 Special wrote:

Fox wrote:

No, I was making a simple statement in response to seonsangnible's statement: that I, personally, have enjoyed male writers more, and further added an explanation as to how that might be compatible with women being better writers in some technical sense (with regards to grammar and word usage). I'm not sure how one would begin to decide which gender is better at creative writing, and like other forms of art it seems best to leave it to taste. Needless to say, the section of text you're quoting is not part of my arguments.

.38 Special wrote:

Interesting supposition you make: Female writers do not have editors. Care to elaborate?

Of course female writers have editors. The point about editors was to explain how a man -- or, by inference, any individual -- might be an excellent creative writer while still having flaws as a technical writer. This allows us to admit women are better technical writers while seeing that, due to editors existing, technical writing capability has less impact on one's ability to be a creative writer than it otherwise might.

Clarified, kiddo?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:39 pm Post subject:

calicoe wrote:

Fox wrote:

seonsengnimble wrote:

Fox wrote:

1. Sources?

My sources are the actual test scores. Test score compilations here, 1972 to 2008.

calicoe wrote:

2. Again, you seem to be implying that there is some sort of conspiracy going on, or that girls are getting some special advantage or privilege at the expense of boys.

Writing was added to the SAT specifically to try to raise girls' scores. I don't know if I'd call that a conspiracy, given there was both nothing illegal about it, and nothing particularly secretive about it. It's obvious why it was done. And I'm sure when they add another female-favoring section to the SAT to try to finally even out those scores, you'll defend the new segment in the same way.

calicoe wrote:

3. Your personal preferences are exactly that - personal. The fact that male readers prefer male writers is not some observation of earth shattering proportions or even statistically significant, but rather, just predictable.

I agree completely. My talk about which type of writers I prefered was honestly simply casual commentary to seonsangnimble, not really part of my overall argumentation. As I said, I don't know how we could really begin to make the case that either gender is better at creative writing, and I think it will always simply be a matter of taste. I was simply explaining to him how he and I could both prefer male writers despite females remaining superior technical writers (and the answer to that is that said texts are editted with regards to technical writing). Other people seem to have misunderstood that as well, so I should obviously have been more clear. I apologize.

kinerry

Joined: 01 Jun 2009

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:38 am Post subject:

I believe the word you people are looking for after 11 pages of arguing semantics is EQUITY

.38 Special

Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:47 pm Post subject:

kinerry wrote:

I believe the word you people are looking for after 11 pages of arguing semantics is EQUITY

Owned.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12 Next
Page 11 of 12

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe