A real debate about women

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee A real debate about women

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 115 total)
  • Author
  • #1049732

    Well yes, if they figured they wanted to hire a non-Jew for whatever reason.


    How about because they don’t like Jews?


    Suppose you are hiring a babysitter for your baby. And you decide on someone who is good enough. And someone else comes and says I’m also good enough, and how come you don’t hire me instead and it isn’t fair.

    Do you answer: well, I already decided?

    Do you answer: because she was better?

    Do you answer: I found her first?

    No. You don’t answer any of those. You don’t answer at all, because the question makes no sense. The question makes no sense because the person asking why you didn’t hire her has nothing to do with you or your hiring decision. Maybe like a lav baal devarim didi ot theory. When you hire a babysitter, the only relevant decision is taking care of your baby, and no part of the decision is making things good or fair to the pool of potential hirees.

    Maybe this doesn’t apply to hiring waiters in your restaraunt, or maybe it does. But it sure applies to babysitters and knesseteers.


    It doesn’t apply to babysitters (in your scenario) because it is your decision, and the assumption is that your decision is solely based on who can best do the job.

    Now, certainly that should be true for public office as well, but it clearly isn’t always.

    Do you think it’s coincidence that the US hasn’t had a female president, and has had only one black president? I think we made a decision on the current president based on race rather than qualification, and probably in the past, there could have been better presidents than we had, had race and gender not been a factor.

    So, while I agree that you can’t argue about a particular person that she has a right to be selected, it might be fair for a society to make judgments based on the broader picture that a class has been discriminated against.

    And you didn’t answer my question, but that really gets to the heart of it. The unspoken accusation here is that there are no female MKs in the chareidi parties because chareidim don’t respect women.

    Your argument, that nobody has a right to a seat, doesn’t address that. Mine, that there are legitimate reasons unrelated to respect, does.


    Isn’t tznius a mitzva for men as well? Men aren’t either supposed to be attracting undue attention to themselves. like RebYid23 said maybe men shouldn’t be in the knesset either…


    The Satmar Rov held that way.

    kj chusid

    There should be no Knesset period


    DY: First of all, I apologize for my harsh tone in a lot of these posts, especially the last one. I unfortunately had a very hard week and was in a lot of pain and I overreacted to a lot of things.

    I’m not denying that you respect women and I’m not saying that it’s impossible to respect women and still think they shouldn’t do certain things. The Torah says that as well.

    I’m just trying to figure out how we can halachically figure out where the line rests. Here in seminary, we learn a lot of halacha out of the Shulchan Aruch and Mishnah Berurah. I wrote a term paper where I needed to carefully attribute my sources. We learned about the process of deciding halacha and it is based on precedent, pesukim, gemara, etc.

    I have no problem understanding that a rav and posek may pasken that a woman shouldn’t be in the Knesset- I was just wondering if, in halacha, there is a specific don’t-cross-this-boundary point that makes something like the Knesset more of an issue than any other workplace.

    That’s really it.


    I don’t have time right now for the full response that your post deserves, but three main points:

    1) It’s all good

    2) Feel better

    3) No, but it sometimes is that way.


    I am fairly certain that I have heard that Adina Bar Shalom (Daughter of Rav Ovadiah Yosef and sister of the current Spehardic Chief Rabbi) will be running for the upcoming knesset election


    Okay, now the longer version:

    I took no offense, I thought you were just being passionate about your opinion. I hope my responses, which were supposed to just address your points, didn’t come across as offensive. I didn’t mean to imply that you thought I don’t respect women, but I think the OP does imply that this is the issue with chareidim not having female MKs, and it’s dead wrong.

    I hope you have a better week this week.

    Although for the most part, halachah does work from the earlier sources on down, very methodically, it’s a mistake to think that Yiddishkeit or even halachah always works this way.

    Just a couple of examples from recent CR discussions: zilzul Shabbos/uvdin d’chol can often be impossible to define or parameterize, yet the concept exists. So how does it get decided? Well, the Chazon Ish says it’s up to the gedolei hador of each dor (and despite Sam’s disclaimer, this is mainstream thought).

    Tznius is this way even in dress, which does have certain specific guidelines, but there are still breaches which may not fall out of any technical definition (I don’t want to get specific).

    Tznius in action is probably even more difficult to draw a specific line for, but certain things most definitely are improper without a specific source, especially since new situations arise in every generation.

    See the source cited by PAA for learned, scholarly women, in which a couple of cases were cited in which women taught men. Yet, they were in a different room/behind a mechitzah.

    Can women talk about Gemara?

    Is there a specific halachah that a man can’t see a woman while saying a shiur? No, but tznius dictates a certain protocol regardless.

    Does being an MK constitute a bigger breach of tznius than saying a shiur to men without a curtain? I think it might. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, there’s an additional factor of a woman in such a public position reinforcing the view of a woman’s role as career oriented, at the expense of her role taking care of her family.

    Luckily, though, I’m not the one deciding, and when dealing with the charedi political parties, it is their gedolim who decide, but I think it is a quite understandable decision.


    DY: Thank you for your kind words :). Baruch Hashem this week is guaranteed to be better (shiva will be over…) but I appreciate the good wishes. I’m glad I didn’t come across as too hard and rude.

    Okay, so I’m starting to see your point. Earlier, you made it sound like your personal opinion, but you’re 100% right- there are cases where it can seem vague. I’d just love to know what exactly was in the minds of the gedolim when they made the psak, because obviously it’s min haTorah… I’m just curious exactly what the cheshbonos were.

    I see your point, but I’m still, for obvious reasons, very curious. Because it wasn’t just “ehh, let’s just asser something else for ’em.”

    Because even if it’s up to the gedolim in each generation, that still doesn’t mean that they’re doing it because “it just seems right.” The point is that they come out of it from Torah and Torah is more than just a gut feeling (and if you might say that for a gadol, Torah becomes their gut feeling, then that means even more that they would bedavka be thinking of the correct Torah hashkafos and not just “status quo is awesome.”

    I’ll probably never know, and even if I were to know I might not understand, but that’s basically my point.


    Oy, I’m so sorry… HaMokom y’nachem eschem…

    Patur Aval Assur

    DaasYochid and Writersoul:

    First of all, I know I must be famous when I get quoted in a thread which I have been avoiding posting in.

    Anyway, correct me if I’m wrong, but all “harsh ton es” and “offensive responses” aside, it doesn’t seem that you are arguing about all that much. The way I see it is that Writersoul is coming from the perspective that generally speaking, issues within halacha are decided by sources within the corpus of Rabbinic Literature, from the Gemara down to the latter day Acharonim. Therefore, the question in this issue is: what sources are their that delineate the exact parameters of tznius? Now DaasYochid is saying that there are some situations where there are not necessarily going to be sources that delineate the exact parameters, because certain halachic concepts are in fact rather vague and need to be determined on a case by case basis. (The first example of this which came to my mind – though perhaps not entirely analogous – is R’ Moshe’s teshuva where he is responding to those who interpreted his earlier teshuva as a blanket heter for face/eye powder on Shabbos, and he writes: ???? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????.)

    But I think that writersoul’s “complaint” is not so much that it’s undefinable, but that it’s so arbitrary. Even if you can’t necessarily define the exact line, you should generally be able to explain why one thing is worse than another. In my example, for instance, if I would show R’ Moshe two different powders, I’m sure he would be able to explain to me why one is muttar and one is assur, even if he couldn’t necessarily define the exact line of demarcation. When it comes to tznius there are so many factors at play. Is being an MK inherently a less tznius position than any other job? I could definitely hear arguments on both sides. What about a woman who runs a store that is frequented by men? Is that tznius? I can hear an argument that a store is less tznius because it is not really a professional atmosphere, whereas the Knesset is. But then again in the Knesset you are more of a public figure.

    I recently quoted in a different thread, the end of Masechet Kiddushin:


    The Braisa is saying that men should not have a job that involves dealing with women. How many men can live up to that in its ideal form. Maybe men shouldn’t be in the Knesset. Maybe men shouldn’t be doing a lot of things. And maybe women shouldn’t be doing a lot of things. But often there is a strong need for something, and we have to compromise on something. So that’s another factor which needs to be taken into account here. How much, if at all, is there a need for female Knesset members? To give an extreme example, if all women would be suicidal if they couldn’t be in the Knesset, would that be a strong enough reason to allow them? How is such a thing to be determined. I think that writersoul’s main point is that no one seems to actually know what the method is. DaasYochid responds that the Chareidi Gedolim are the ones deciding, but that itself is somewhat vague.

    Anyway, I’m not sure if this post actually contributes anything to this discussion (but hey, when has that ever stopped me in the past?) and I hope no one interprets it as harsh or offensive, and I hope everyone has a better week than the last one.

    Patur Aval Assur


    I posted my previous post without having seen the two posts before it. I’m not sure how much it affects what I said, so all I’ll do here is add my sincerest condolences to the last sentence of the post.


    A couple of points to add to the discussion: writersoul, you said, “I’d just love to know what exactly was in the minds of the gedolim when they made the psak”, and, “Because it wasn’t just “ehh, let’s just asser something else for ’em.””.

    I think that’s not what’s going on. There was probably never a psak on the matter, because the issue probably never came up. I would assume that the downside of having a female MK is pretty obvious, and the “upside”, egalitarianism, is not at all seen as a positive, so it seems unlikely that there was ever a female candidate suggested, and that gedolim had to pasken against it. As PAA points out, it would only happen out of great necessity, and there likely hasn’t been any; I don’t know that anyone ever “assered” it, more likely, it was never brought up. Maybe hypothetically, in the right situation (unlikely to ever happen) it would actually be deemed muttar.

    The second point is on writersoul’s comment that the reason probably isn’t merely, “status quo is awesome.” Well, no, but if it came up, the idea that change without compelling reason is dangerous would surface.

    Patur Aval Assur


    The way you have explained it can be essentially summed up in one sentence:

    At the present time, the need to have female MKs does not outweigh the various reasons not to.

    Agree or disagree?


    “the need to have female MKs”

    What need? (There ain’t any.)


    Agree, although I don’t agree with the implication that there is some sort of need.

    Patur Aval Assur

    That was ??????? ??? – that even if there is a need, it’s not enough.


    So Adina Bar-Shalom stepped up to the plate and flinched. She will suffice with heading the Shas Women’s Council and be the frontwoman for a movement that deems half of Am Yisrael to be unfit to stand for public office. Tsk, tsk, tsk. To paraphrase Thomas More (played by the late Paul Scofield) in the classic 1966 film “A Man For All Seasons”, “It profitteth a woman not to sell her soul even if she gain the whole world, but for the Shas Women’s Council?”

    I wonder if Eli Yishai will have any women on his list?


    Do any American Orthodox women hold political office? Just wondering.

    I did.

    Patur Aval Assur

    So I just read an article by Chevy Weiss who is a Charedi woman who has 20 years of political experience (behind the scenes). The article was arguing AGAINST having women in the Knesset. However she acknowledged three reasons why “a real Haredi woman would want to run for public office.”

    1) Women want their husbands to be learning. If there is a job market in which it is integral to have Charedi representation, but only allows for men, then those men will not be able to learn.

    2) There are various issues being faced by Charedim, including an economic crisis, and women have good ideas, especially since they are generally the ones in the real world, yet men generally don’t listen to the women’s ideas.

    3) Charedi women do not have a voice in their community. Especially if they don’t have husbands. And with the prevalence of divorce, Rabbis and organizations frequently side with the man. Women feel that female MKs will adequately address their needs in a way that is not being done by male Knesset members.

    Now of course we can disagree with the facts or legitimacy of these needs (I have what to ding zuch on all three), but I don’t think we can deny that there are women who feel this way. Therefore, I don’t think it is fair to simply dismiss this as a push for egalitarianism with no actual needs whatsoever.

    This is why I think that DaasYochid’s argument is superior to Lior’s argument.


    First of all, DY and PAA: thank you so much :). I really appreciate your good wishes.

    PAA, you summed up what I was saying quite well. (I seem to have been repeating myself a lot without actually making myself clearer…)

    DY, one of the things that I’ve been saying is that people assume that what’s going on is right just because it’s been going on. Perhaps it is, but it needs to stand up to sudden independent scrutiny even so. You make the point (or more precisely agree with PAA’s point) that the reasons not to allow it outweigh the reasons to allow it- but like I’ve been saying, those reasons still seem nebulous to me.

    I read that article you mentioned, PAA, and I was not impressed. I think that her reasons why it’s a good idea are better than her reasons why it’s not. She makes the very good points that charedi women and their ideas and causes are underserved in the Israeli charedi community and then says things that she doesn’t back up and that I don’t understand- what makes a woman more spiritually vulnerable in the workplace than a man? (One of the sem teachers’ big pro-kollel arguments is predicated on the opposite idea…) What makes her think that the people who don’t want women in the Knesset want women in smaller community political offices or community organizations (beyond a gemach or chessed organization) anyway? How does she plan on getting women a voice- she’s not the first person who’s advocated for it…? She sounds like she’s forming all of her opinions to fit with her preexisting ideas and the status quo, which is just what has been frustrating me so much.

    PAA, I can see issues with her arguments as far as why it wouldn’t davka require women to be in the Knesset, but otherwise I think that those points are sound. Yes, it’s true that women can theoretically get involved in other ways, but that’s not happening either. At the same time, the issues she mentions are important. And like I said, I wasn’t impressed with her rebuttal of these points.


    There are people who feel all sorts of irrational ways, but that doesn’t make anything anyone “feels” legitimate. All three of those refutable reasons are covers for egalitarianism.


    Your accusations of those feelings being a cover for egalitarianism is a cover for your bigotry.

    my own kind of jew

    Both men and women are commanded to act “betznius.” So why are men able to be in the “limelight” and not women, should they choose to ?


    Because it is a man’s job to go out in the world while it is a woman’s job to be at home. (That is the Torah speaking, not just me.) Men and women’s conception of tznius differs from each other.


    Writersoul, I found the article. The money quote: “There are three reasons a real Haredi woman would want to run for public office:”. Here’s where I agree, in a sense with popa (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/a-real-debate-about-women#post-549668). Why is the question why women want to run? The question should be of what benefit that would be to klal Yisroel!

    Patur Aval Assur


    First of all, regarding your first two sentences and your third sentence, you’re welcome and thank you respectively.

    Now on to business:

    The issue of keeping the status quo, is an interesting one. I think there is definitely value in keeping things the same, generally speaking. However, when there are reasons to change, I thing it should be considered. (In fact there are several threads here, where I have argued strongly against keeping things the same, most notably http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/techeiles/ starting about halfway down page 9.)

    But, I would quote Professor Umbridge here: “Progress for progress’s sake must be discouraged, for our tried and tested traditions often require no tinkering.” Meaning that we shouldn’t be changing things just for the sake of changing it. There has to be a reason to change. But I think you, and DaasYochid both agree with me on that. The only disagreement would be what the necessary standard is, which is very likely going to be dependent on the circumstances of each individual issue, and in proportion to the strength of the reasons behind the current position. If that wasn’t so clear, what I mean is that not all status quos are necessarily equal. And just to clarify, when I wrote in my earlier post about the reasons pro not outweighing the reasons against, I wasn’t saying that that is in fact the case here; I was saying that that is DaasYochid’s argument.

    Now about the article, when I said that I have what to ding zuch on each of her three points, I did not mean to summarily dismiss them. It’s just that I have some quibbles with them which I’ll mention now:

    I didn’t really get her first point. While in theory it is true that women want their husbands to be learning, I don’t think it would be relevant here. There are 120 members of the Knesset. Even if every single one of them was Chareidi, that would only entail 120 men not learning. There are many more than 120 Chareidi men working. She had suggested that women could work in the Knesset instead of in other fields; you could say the same thing for men. So I don’t think that the Torah learning is a real issue here.

    My issues with her second point are not really significant enough to justify making this post longer than it will already be.

    Her third point, I thought was good, but I think she should have kept the focus on women having a voice in general. Many people would be sympathetic to such a claim. But they might be turned off when she brings up the Rabbis and divorce issues.

    But I tend to agree with you regarding her reasons against women in the Knesset, or rather the lack thereof. Essentially all she said was that the particular method of achieving this change is inappropriate, which obviously does not address why there shouldn’t be change, and then she said simply that we shouldn’t be trying to change the system. She mentioned Rebbetzen Weinberg as a good model, but wasn’t that precisely the second issue she mentioned earlier – that only wives of great Roshei Yeshiva have a voice. So I’m not sure how that helps. She also mentioned that it’s a bad environment for a frum woman, but as I think you pointed out, she doesn’t explain why it would be a bad environment for a woman but not for a man. The only thing she really said was that women shouldn’t be in the spotlight, (which conceivably is more of an issue with the Knesset than with any old job) which is in fact the argument that some people were making here.

    DaasYochid also made the point that women in the Knesset would be “reinforcing the view of a woman’s role as career oriented, at the expense of her role taking care of her family”, but I think that would be equally an issue (or non-issue) with any career.

    So in short, what it comes down to is how you weigh the issues on each side. I think the issues should be discussed, because otherwise people will just say that it’s bigotry vs. egalitarianism, which is what it seems like from some of the other posts here.

    If you actually made it to the end of this post, then I thank you for taking the time to read it (Moderators too).

    Patur Aval Assur


    All three reasons are things which could theoretically benefit Klal Yisrael, or at least part of Klal Yisrael. I think the author meant that there are three reasons why a real Charedi woman would feel that having women in the Knesset could be beneficial.


    PAA: Agree with your points (though quoting Umbridge isn’t the way to gain sympathy to your argument… πŸ™‚ ). And I got what you were saying about DY’s argument.

    I didn’t get the first one either from a practical level- I just “got it” from the perspective of “a good charedi woman” thinking something like that as a justification because it jives with the general hashkafa.

    I don’t think that she’s woken up to the fact that the point isn’t necessarily the Knesset- the point is also the issue of women having a say which isn’t happening in other forums either.

    DY (derech PAA): As far as women focusing more on career than family- I want to be a doctor. I think that from a practical perspective that is (both practically and from an outside perspective) a pretty strong statement about the value of a career. (I wish it weren’t, but there you go…) And to be fair, the Knesset has WAY more vacation time than does the medical field :). And, like PAA said (and even the author of the AINT article), there are definitely good and valid reasons to have women in positions of impact- reasons that would be good not just for the other 50% of klal Yisrael (reason #3) but also for the entire nation (#2).

    And no, I don’t think that all of the people saying this are obviously bigots, or that all of the women who want to run are doing so solely for the egalitarian aspect. (PS, as a woman, theoretically I have more sympathy for the woman’s side in this case, but that said I advocate neither of those approaches- while they are not necessarily the norm, there are people who are so motivated.)


    Except that real Chareidi women aren’t advocating, seeking or wanting this. This kind of advocacy comes from a tiny minority with values greatly different than the silent majority who are quite happy with the status quo.

    Patur Aval Assur

    PAA: Agree with your points (though quoting Umbridge isn’t the way to gain sympathy to your argument… πŸ™‚ ).

    Don’t worry – I wasn’t trying to gain sympathy; it just happens to be that she articulated the idea very well. Maybe next time I’ll follow the Rambam’s lead (from his introduction to Shemoneh Perakim):

    ???? ???? ??? ?????

    ????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???

    ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?????

    ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??

    ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???

    ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????


    ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???? ??????

    [emphasis added]

    Patur Aval Assur


    Not that I’m saying that this is the case here, but isn’t it possible that the “silent majority” does want the change but they are afraid/embarrassed to speak out about it?


    PAA, so kasha reisha aseifa. I would answer, chisurei mechs’ra, v’hochi kotoni: we want to be MKs, but that won’t fly, so let’s make up reasons why it benefit the tzibbur, d’haynu, (v’chulhu).

    Also, none of the three reasons make sense.

    The first reason presupposes that male MKs would otherwise be learning. Meiheicha teisi. Furthermore, it’s ridiculous to assume that those clamoring for female charedi representation are motivated by wanting more men in the Bais Medrash.

    The second and third reasons assume that charedi men don’t value women’s opinions, and in fact, don’t value them at all. Aside from being profoundly insulting to charedi men, to assume that the male dominated charedi political parties would wake up one morning and say, “You know, they’re right, we hate women, so let’s make them MKs”.

    Patur Aval Assur


    A chisurei mechs’ra is a last resort. I can just as easily say the

    opposite – they want to benefit the tzibur and therefore they want to become MKs. The point is that none of us know what they are really thinking. We can speculate all we want. But I generally try to avoid imputing nefarious motives to people whom I don’t know. (This is an example of a statement that might be taken harshly, but I don’t mean it that way.)

    The first reason presupposes that male MKs would otherwise be learning. Meiheicha teisi.

    I already pointed that out.

    Furthermore, it’s ridiculous to assume that those clamoring for female charedi representation are motivated by wanting more men in the Bais Medrash.

    It would only be ridiculous because in practice it won’t result in more men in the Beis Medrash. It is certainly not ridiculous to say that they are machshiv Torah learning.

    I can’t say how Charedi men actually view women and their opinions, but it is not surprising that there are women that perceive it negatively. Whether they should expect this particular tactic to work is a different story.

    Rebbe Yid

    The chareidim are mistama holding by Rav Kook that women ought not run for office. Of course, he held women shouldn’t vote either, so they’re being a shtickle meikel.


    let me ask a question,

    why do chareidi women want to be in the knesset?


    A chisurei mechs’ra is a last resort.

    On divrei Tannaim.

    I already pointed that out.

    Yet, it is correct.

    It would only be ridiculous because in practice it won’t result in more men in the Beis Medrash.

    No, it’s ridiculous to ascribe these motives to something which is so obviously based on feminism.

    Whether they should expect this particular tactic to work is a different story.

    A different story which should clarify for you what the motive really is.

    my own kind of jew

    Lior, where in the Tohra does it say that it’s a women’s job to remain in the home, and a mans to go out in the world?

    Patur Aval Assur
    Patur Aval Assur


    I’m not going to deny that there are certainly women who are motivated by feminism. But that doesn’t mean that there can’t also be women who have other motivations.


    mokoj: Kol Kevudah. See SA/Rema EH 73-1 and Mishneh Torah, Ishus 13-11.


    Lior: That’s for Stam wandering around. When there’s a purpose there’s no issue. Read the Rambam you’re citing.

    Patur Aval Assur

    The Mesorah L’Yosef (by the talmidim of ?’ ???? ????) p. 113-114 discusses this Rambam as an example of a psak of the Rambam that is not applicable anymore due to changing metzius. I will hopefully post the actual quote tomorrow.


    Kol Kevudah is a pasuk in the Torah and the SA and Rema rule on it as halacha l’maaisa. (See citation above.)


    Lior: Kol Kevudah is in Nach (Mishlei, I think), not Chumash. And did you see your own citation? Apparently not.


    Sam: Kol Kevudah is in Tehilim (not Mishlei). Yes, I’ve seen the citations. In any event, the entirety of Tanach is colloquially referred to as Torah. Even the Gemorah is called Torah. At least by my rebbeim.

    Patur Aval Assur

    I know I haven’t posted the quote which I said I would post – I was otherwise engaged today, but hopefully I will get around to it soon.

    Before I get around to that though, I just want to respond to Lior:

    First of all, I did not mean to imply that the principle of kol kevudah has, or should be, abrogated. I was specifically addressing the psak about a woman leaving her house, as you will see when I post the quote.

    About the actual citation, I don’t think that it is correct to say that the Shulchan Aruch and Rema ruled on it halacha l’ma’aseh. The Shulchan Aruch didn’t mention it at all, and in the old fashioned printings, the relevant line is in parentheses with no introductory “???” which means that it was not necessarily written by the Rema. I was unable to access the “tzuras hadaf” edition which corrected parenthetical remarks, so I am speculating. If anyone does have that edition, you can check if they attribute this remark to the Rema or not. Regardless of who the author of the statement is, it is interesting to note that he changed the statement from how the Rambam and the Tur said it, specifically by leaving out the part about once or twice per month.

    Also – not that this makes a difference for this dicussion – I would agree with Sam here. While people do refer to many different works colloquially as “Torah” I don’t think people use the phrase “pasuk in the Torah” to refer to anything outside of the Five Books of Moses.

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 115 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.