No, and oddly enough no one has done this for me either… and yet here I am. If you don’t believe women are inferior to you why on earth do you think they’d need to be spoon fed information as if they are driveling idiots?
Good points, everyone.
I think I have made mine, but, yes, the problem with quotas, in the eyes of some, is that they patronise women, in a way…
As a college teacher, however, I see this all the time: young women who are often better leaders and more organised students being pushed aside in group work by less able male peers who simply take over leadership of group projects without doing more, sometimes, than posturing. When asked why they let this happen, the female students do not have an answer: something, whether it is peer pressure or an in-built check, stopped them from putting themselves as leaders, even if they were perfectly capable. It is that fear of being called ‘bossy’ that stops a lot of young women from taking the right steps to the career they should be able to have - that is, even before we talk about the impact of maternity.
When you are in that position - a teacher, an employer - you have a duty to at least try to give equal opportunities based on merit, but also to create opportunities where you value somebody’s leadetship skills more than to be in the office twelve hours a day, or to be arrogant and posturing, or to be shouting the loudest. There is, with this topic, always a danger to negatively stereotype men and women, but the cultural underappreciation of women as natural born leaders is one that starts at primary school and we have a duty to at least try to get to grips with how we can help women with leadership qualities be unafraid to put their hand up and take charge.
I am done 
You are making sweeping claims. Men are more prone to risky behavior on the whole. Testosterone and other hormones that are inherently male have this effect. It is not bigotry to point this out. Science points this out. Perhaps if you looked at the subject not as a male that needs to defend a position but with some critical thought see what issues contribute to these situations you may not need to be so defensive.
Are men the only cause of the GFC? It would be a sweeping claim to say that men as a species where responsible. But it would not be a sweeping claim to point out that greed was a major contributing factor for it. It just happens that there are a majority of men that contributed to it. Could this be because males are more prone to take risk and this type of industry attracts the risk takers to begin with? It all contributes to it.
Its not bigotry to point this out. If you do a little research on the GFC and other financial troubles this is a reoccurring theme that keeps coming up. There is a culture that promotes this type of behavior in the industry. The system itself has been set up to be manipulated from the beginning. Risk is encouraged. Greed is encouraged. When it all goes wrong the buck is passed onto the public. Its a win win situation for those with the ability to take on the most risk.
A(nother) very good post, Getty, thank you…
If you took the time to read the beginning of the thread this was in reply to why more women are not in trading. For those that want to make a positive change and try and introduce more females into a male dominated sector then being pro-active and taking some time to point someone in the right direction to learn about trading might go a long way to introducing more females into this field. It is seen as a male field. That straight away will put many females off.
So no one has done this for you? Over your life either consciously or sub-consciously you have got it in your head to give trading a go. This may have formed through watching movies, TV, reading news or some other way that gave you strong male role models that got you interested or you wanted to emulate. Alpha males are stylized by society as Strong, Wealthy, Powerful. Thats the benefit of being male, we have other males that have gone before, blazed the path and shown the way. They may not directly show us how to do it but we have a guiding light to look to and know it can be done.
It doesn’t matter if you want to see it or not but women are at certain disadvantages because of this. I’m not advocating to give all females preferential treatment but just to give them the equal opportunity that males as a whole are given due to the way society has evolved. This means that these opportunities have to be tailored towards woman’s way of thinking. Its not spoon feeding them as you say but opening up a field that has been male dominated and woman have been actively kept out of through many levels of psychology. And not all woman will take those opportunities, the same as not all men don’t. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t still extend the offer towards woman.
In this case, instead of wondering why more woman are not trading, take the time to point them to this forum and have a read through the school so they can actually understand what trading is about instead of seeing it as just something men know how to do and is out of reach. Your not carrying them, your not trying to teach them but you are giving them exposure to something you may have gotten exposure to for free from another source just because you are a male by birth.
Excellent post, Getty!!!
The beauty of writing this thread, for me, has been learning how many women work and operate in the financial sector
as traders, managers, chairwomen, and so on: what I also discovered is that there is a lot of goodwill on the part of
men in positions of authority to help redress the gender imbalance (as well as the ethnic one, for example - but that is
the topic for another thread) in the sector… There is more work to be done, of course, and it is clear to all what the
financial and social benefits are to have more women in decision-making posts across the financial sector, but not only.
I always refer people to this video (YouTube)
to remind them, also, how dreadful it can be to be a woman in the world where education
is seen as something that is not for them, which leads to less educated, less independent, and less financially influential
women in society: this has not only a personal cost to them individually, but also to the whole of the context that they
inhabit. In the developed countries that a few of us here inhabit, the situation is less ‘scary’ than that portrayed in the
video, but when you look at this project’s findings (now published into a book as well)
http://everydays exism.com/index.php/about (PS: copy and paste the link, then delete the space between ‘days’ and ‘exism’… I could not post the link address as the ‘s’ word turned into asterisks!)
you can see how much work we have to do to not just eradicate s e x i s m
but to change gender roles to be more malleable than they are.
I hope that this thread has been a good read for many BabyPips peeps, and that it has helped their own understanding
of what ‘successful’ means to them, men or women of these forums, along the way.
Cheers.
What objectionable claim did I make? Be specific please.
The title of this thread is Why We Need More Female Traders and links to a mainstream article that includes statements made (as if they are fact) about women’s supposed superiority in a number of facets. My ONLY claim is that if the inverse statements were made, most would (rightly) see it as ***ism.
All you’re doing is underlining my point… we see it as ***ist when it’s against women and just “how it is” when its against men. I don’t expect you to immediately see your blindspot… its your blindspot.
[QUOTE=Getty;678575]For those that want to make a positive change and try and introduce more females into a male dominated sector then being pro-active and taking some time to point someone in the right direction to learn about trading might go a long way to introducing more females into this field.
[QUOTE]
Why is having more female traders a positive change by default? What about female CEO’s? What is it about a vagina that automatically makes the world improve based solely on it’s proximity to money and power? Have you ever posted anywhere else on the web about how you want to help make a positive difference in the world by ensuring that more women get their chance to become miners? Shovel operators? Plumbers?
The rest of your very long statements are so full of implicit ***ism I don’t know where to start… You seem to be saying that, More women = Less Corruption/Greed. If you really believe that, you’re not basing it on reality.
[QUOTE=Getty;678575]For those that want to make a positive change and try and introduce more females into a male dominated sector then being pro-active and taking some time to point someone in the right direction to learn about trading might go a long way to introducing more females into this field.
[QUOTE=Wheeels;678734]
Why is having more female traders a positive change by default? What about female CEO’s? What is it about a vagina that automatically makes the world improve based solely on it’s proximity to money and power? Have you ever posted anywhere else on the web about how you want to help make a positive difference in the world by ensuring that more women get their chance to become miners? Shovel operators? Plumbers?The rest of your very long statements are so full of implicit ***ism I don’t know where to start… You seem to be saying that, More women = Less Corruption/Greed. If you really believe that, you’re not basing it on reality.
Please take the time to understand the context of the words. The positive change referred to is not by having more female traders. The positive change would be in redressing the issue of it being seen as a closed off, male dominated sector. The net outcome of extra females in the field has no implied impact on the field itself and in no way equates a positive change for the markets.
Funny you mention mining in your reply as it is one of the manual sectors where females are seen as a benefit by large mining companies. It has been demonstrated that they are more cost effective heavy machinery operators then men, they are not aggressive in handling the machinery and the list goes on.
Again, please take the time to read and understand. If there are scientific peer reviewed studies that equate males, male hormones and male genetic predisposition towards risk and high risk behavior, it does not mean that it is ***ism to point this out. It is just science. There is nothing wrong with being like that, that is how all us males are on some level. Some it manifests in higher levels, some lower but the underlying fact is all males already start out towards this end of the scale just by being male.
[B]Women will not equal less greed[/B] but they may be more risk adverse by genetic nature, one point I was making is the money system has been set up from the start around greed. It will always be like that, no matter if you had 75% woman running it. The system is built around it and it will encourage those that are the high risk takers and risk tolerant into it. Science demonstrates males are prone to risk behavior to begin with. The real point is that men are exposed to this field through multiple fronts just because there are other males in it, pictured with it, associated with it. Males bond, we have “boys clubs”, we encourage, compete, test and look up to each other and that is the brotherhood of being born a male. Nothing wrong with that but we must also understand that by being that way we are automatically excluding females as a default but not necessarily by intention. The issue of ***ism comes up when as a male you are not aware that all these things are happening automatically behind the scenes between males, then to add to the problem you don’t take the time to extend some sort of bridge to help females in a similar way especially in the working environment or equal rights within society. Its not about giving females preferential treatment and preferential treatment certainly is not what was original fought for by the feminist movement. It is about understanding the way we are as men and extending the same opportunities towards woman in a way that is [B][U]right for woman[/U][/B]. If a woman wants to take up those positions and roles the choice should be available for them regardless if only 1% follow through on it.
It seems that you may at a minimum be lashing out at what you perceive to be feminists and the fights they put forward. If you want to take the time to read up on the feminist movement, you will find that a few dominant original feminists are very disgusted with the way it has been highjacked and are even saying that what is thrown around today is a fragmented uncertain militant form and in most cases just fighting to say that they did. There are multiple goals and direction gets lost as different groups fight for different goals which often times are petty issues and just turn others against the whole. This is not how it started.
Excellent post, Getty!
One thing I would add is this: there is a problem of identity… A lot of women who have had children have a change in perspectives brought on by the societal pressure and their own feelings of connection with the infant, all of which means
that their identity will no longer be centred around their work persona and for a significant period (a few months to a few
years) there may even be a complete break from being employed.
There is a stronger stigma attached to full-time fathers than mothers, because society expects the person who has delivered the child (the mother) to give up work, whereas nobody expects the man to give up work by choice: similarly, women who
do not have children at all or have them later in life, or who are the breadwinners, are seen as ‘different’ and the assumption is that either they do not have children, or they may leave, or that they are ‘super-women’ who try to do it all, somehow.
The break from a career (not a job, but a CAREER) is hard on both male and female parents, but men lack the physical connection with the child unborn and therefore will continue to work while their female partner is unable to do so around the time of giving birth and before/after: this means that the identity of the man, for that time and, by extension, for their whole life, is much more tied into their work persona and their career identity than that of their female partner…
Men, therefore, are driven to work as a matter of identity more so than women, in general, almost, one might say, to
compensate for their inability to fulfil the role of birth-givers: the fact, sadly, that parenting is not recognised as 'work’
by society, either for men or women, means that there is no career incentive to take time off to become more involved with
a child’s early development (=pre-school). If, when going to a job interview, people could be viewed favourably for having
delivered full-time parenting to their newborn, it would encourage more people to rethink having to pay enormous fees to
childcare, kindergardens, and babysitters, and missing out on something that is not only humanly very rewarding but also
hard ‘work’ (yes, and it should be called so proudly on any curriculum vitae), and therefore a great experience in discipline, planning, and responsibility… All the skills learnt while parenting are actually directly applicable to the work place, including empathy, responsiveness, proactive behaviour, resilience, etc.
Therefore, it is not easy for women to have children in certain careers, because this is not seen as something that can become an enhancement to their professional development but, sadly, only a hindrance, a knock-back, a stepping down, a slowing down while their child-less / male colleagues keep going through their time off on maternity leave, stealing promotions, possibly, or getting the extra experience needed for stepping onto the next salary level…
I think that we should look at the way society and the workplace are conceived, so as to allow more fathers to become more involved (without stigma) with family-building, and more women to become more involved with careers currently out of reach (without guilt toward their family life). In other words, the current setup is failing men, women, families, and the economy: we keep banging on the same ‘nine-to-five’ drum as though it were the holy grail of all work ethics, when, in fact, it is damaging families, individuals, and society as whole.
Let us help more women into high-level posts as one of many measures to begin rethinking how we promote individuals, focussing less on aggressiveness and the ability to spend 50+ hours in an office, and more on their all-round human potential as people who may want to be more than work-slaves, perhaps even parents.
Thank you.
[QUOTE=Getty;678925]
[QUOTE=Getty;678575]For those that want to make a positive change and try and introduce more females into a male dominated sector then being pro-active and taking some time to point someone in the right direction to learn about trading might go a long way to introducing more females into this field.
Please take the time to understand the context of the words. The positive change referred to is not by having more female traders. The positive change would be in redressing the issue of it being seen as a closed off, male dominated sector. The net outcome of extra females in the field has no implied impact on the field itself and in no way equates a positive change for the markets.
Funny you mention mining in your reply as it is one of the manual sectors where females are seen as a benefit by large mining companies. It has been demonstrated that they are more cost effective heavy machinery operators then men, they are not aggressive in handling the machinery and the list goes on.
Again, please take the time to read and understand. If there are scientific peer reviewed studies that equate males, male hormones and male genetic predisposition towards risk and high risk behavior, it does not mean that it is ***ism to point this out. It is just science. There is nothing wrong with being like that, that is how all us males are on some level. Some it manifests in higher levels, some lower but the underlying fact is all males already start out towards this end of the scale just by being male.
[B]Women will not equal less greed[/B] but they may be more risk adverse by genetic nature, one point I was making is the money system has been set up from the start around greed. It will always be like that, no matter if you had 75% woman running it. The system is built around it and it will encourage those that are the high risk takers and risk tolerant into it. Science demonstrates males are prone to risk behavior to begin with. The real point is that men are exposed to this field through multiple fronts just because there are other males in it, pictured with it, associated with it. Males bond, we have “boys clubs”, we encourage, compete, test and look up to each other and that is the brotherhood of being born a male. Nothing wrong with that but we must also understand that by being that way we are automatically excluding females as a default but not necessarily by intention. The issue of ***ism comes up when as a male you are not aware that all these things are happening automatically behind the scenes between males, then to add to the problem you don’t take the time to extend some sort of bridge to help females in a similar way especially in the working environment or equal rights within society. Its not about giving females preferential treatment and preferential treatment certainly is not what was original fought for by the feminist movement. It is about understanding the way we are as men and extending the same opportunities towards woman in a way that is [B][U]right for woman[/U][/B]. If a woman wants to take up those positions and roles the choice should be available for them regardless if only 1% follow through on it.
It seems that you may at a minimum be lashing out at what you perceive to be feminists and the fights they put forward. If you want to take the time to read up on the feminist movement, you will find that a few dominant original feminists are very disgusted with the way it has been highjacked and are even saying that what is thrown around today is a fragmented uncertain militant form and in most cases just fighting to say that they did. There are multiple goals and direction gets lost as different groups fight for different goals which often times are petty issues and just turn others against the whole. This is not how it started.
Just to paraphrase you extremely wordy response (in the context of a thread and article claiming more females in trading would improve the markets)…
“We’re not saying the markets would be better for having more women in them… but here are all the reasons that the markets would be better if more women were in them”
Questions of mine you answered 0
Studies you cited for your claims 0
Incidences where you’ve campaigned for more women filling menial occupations 0
Please don’t bring RELIGION of feminism into this, I limit my discussion on these topics to those things that require no faith for belief. No invisible barriers, no intangible forces that attribute malevolence to every person of a given ***, in short… no make believe. Thanks!
-
Note that you are referring to a stigma men suffer (and consequently a choice they are scorned for that women can make freely), and extra credit awarded to women for being a parent with a career when its simply expected of men… and in both cases you’re portraying them as something women suffer.
-
You seem to also be supporting the promotion of women based solely on *** and the promotion of all individuals based on how they perform outside of work. The first bit is ***ism, the second is a nice thought but ultimately leads to the destruction of the economy.
[QUOTE=Wheeels;679097][QUOTE=Getty;678925]
Just to paraphrase you extremely wordy response (in the context of a thread and article claiming more females in trading would improve the markets)…
“We’re not saying the markets would be better for having more women in them… but here are all the reasons that the markets would be better if more women were in them”
Questions of mine you answered 0
Studies you cited for your claims 0
Incidences where you’ve campaigned for more women filling menial occupations 0Please don’t bring RELIGION of feminism into this, I limit my discussion on these topics to those things that require no faith for belief. No invisible barriers, no intangible forces that attribute malevolence to every person of a given ***, in short… no make believe. Thanks!
1 - I never quoted an article claiming more females in trading would improve the markets. So your trying to mix another’s words into mine. Please read back and check for yourself. Simply comprehension skills should suffice for this on your part.
2 - Woman already fill menial jobs fine. They don’t need campaigning to stay in those jobs, they are already there.
3 - No “RELIGION of feminism” as you say, just pointing out you seem against woman in this discussion just because they are woman. I was wondering if this reaction was because of what is often thrown around today as feminism but is often not the struggle that started. Good to see your trying to associate emotive connotations by linking the words RELIGION and FEMINISM together. Sadly, if you had taken the time to read and understand what I had written, I pointed out that some original feminist had said feminism has been highjacked and fragmented into a thousand different arguments with no direction or cohesion. Not exactly backing feminism there on my part. Your reaction to it with your reply answers that for me so now I need wonder no more.
4 - As for not answering your questions:
[B]Q: Why is having more female traders a positive change by default? [/B]
A: Please take the time to understand the context of the words. The positive change referred to is not by having more female traders. The positive change would be in redressing the issue of it being seen as a closed off, male dominated sector. The net outcome of extra females in the field has no implied impact on the field itself and in no way equates a positive change for the markets.
Read more: 301 Moved Permanently
[B]Q?:What about female CEO’s? What is it about a vagina that automatically makes the world improve based solely on it’s proximity to money and power?[/B]
A: See above. Also,[B][U] I [/U][/B]have never put forward that there is anything automatically improved about the world with woman around money and power.
No need to be derogatory in your remarks. Please use your big boy words we can understand what you mean without genitalia. Men have a penis, Woman have a vagina and it doesn’t need to be spelt out to know the difference between them.
[B]
Q: Have you ever posted anywhere else on the web about how you want to help make a positive difference in the world by ensuring that more women get their chance to become miners? Shovel operators? Plumbers? [/B]
A:Funny you mention mining in your reply as it is one of the manual sectors where females are seen as a benefit by large mining companies. It has been demonstrated that they are more cost effective heavy machinery operators then men, they are not aggressive in handling the machinery and the list goes on.
Read more: 301 Moved Permanently
Why would I care if I posted anywhere else on the web about anything? Its the web! Does it make me a more knowledgeable or important person if I have posted on Yahoo answers as well? I don’t have any peer reviewed papers out on this subject so I’m the exact same as every other person - just a voice with an opinion no matter if I have 100 000 posts on the “web” or 1.
[B]Questions of mine you answered 0[/B] - check again.
[B]Studies you cited for your claims 0[/B] - I’m just having a nice discussion, pointing out things every person can see in everyday life. If you want a well rounded world view then its up to you to read up on things around you. See links at bottom.
[B]Incidences where you’ve campaigned for more women filling menial occupations 0[/B] - Is that my fight? Is that even the discussion we are having? Keep on point, I know it might be hard for you.
The simple fact that you would resort to this as a rebuttal highlights the very point I have put forward. That they should be kept in these roles before any other is the very problem. It is the default reaction of a male dominated society. Women should be equally able to access all employment, regardless of what that is. They should be extended the understanding that they are welcome and wanted in all levels. They do not need campaigning on behalf of for cleaning jobs, they have them!
Men extend other men a certain degree of bonding to begin with. We associate ourselves with other men. It is a part of physiology we all share as males. Plenty of studies show this if you want to look it up. It is all part of bonding, pack, alpha male, territorial and such. These are shared by all males and it is part of our make up. This is not some made up thing, science clearly demonstrates these behaviors in males along with many others. These are [B]not some invisible barrier or no intangible forces that attribute malevolence to every person of a given *** as you say[/B] just science that you to can learn about if you want to take the time to read. Maybe a quick read of “[B]The male fear of the feminine[/B]” Masculine psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia would give you a small understanding that men really do have certain inbuilt tendencies. Don’t discount it because of the word [B]Feminine[/B], its more about us as males. Many other interesting things you can look up if you want to learn about who we are as males.
Basic overview of the male and society gender traits we may exhibit.
Male Psychology Basics | Psychology of Men
At least have a read of number 3.
To bring this concept home to all of us as traders, these are the underlying drivers that male traders need to understand and control for ourselves. This is what it means when people talk about trader psychology. What you choose to take away from learning these things is up to you. I can’t be bothered referencing books and page numbers so this is just a link I found in 1min of Google but it gives you a direction to look into if you want to. Both ***es have certain inbuilt traits. Its the way we are.
Male Psychology Basics | Psychology of Men
Good points. Males not getting the same opportunity to bond with the child has always been a point of contention for me. Many males feel like they miss out on this once in a life time opportunity with each child and that can never be gotten back. It is good to see that is some countries this imbalance between men and woman is being addressed and men are also eligible for maternity leave to bond and help with a new born.
This still doesn’t help woman that are out of the workforce for up to many years. There are many places though that hold positions open during maternity leave and supposedly the climb up the career ladder is only paused and not lost.
I can babysit… Your cat
Meowwww!!!
Here is Linda Yueh, one of my business correspondent idols,
talking about the barriers faced by women in business, with four guests,
among which the judge (and former ‘first lady’ at 10 Downing Street) Cherie Blair:
A wonderful programme, truly.
Hi guys,
Thanx for the interesting thread and theories. I can enlighten you a little bit on my own case. I have been small trading for 5 years now and I am able to trade profitably for a few month in a row now. So I graduated from my home schooled academy. But to be serious. Women no for a long time that life is not smoothly 50/50 equally shared. As many divorced women have experienced they almost leave the relationship broke. For me I have had an interest in gender and social issues since high school and I made a vow to explore whatever resources to find out if people where always to blame for their misfortune.
And than it happened. I found myself divorced, broke and suffering from chronic fatigue after a thyroid dysectomie raising 3 teens. Doctors gave up on my health and I would never be able to return to the workforce (hate it anyway) again. Against all old I decided in a stubborn determination to see my dreams come true and instead on focusing being hardworking rich. I adopted the micro scale on everything. From growing vegetable to inventing healthy diy shakes.
Still angry about the stupid rules that surround people on welfare, I decided to challenge the system and get my money at the source. Stock market and Forex exchange. Fueled by that sneaky plan I dove in one of my old ideas “Men making money behind the computer in the attic” I had to figure out what it was, because the picture in my head dated back 12 years or so.
Google to the rescue; I stumbled upon Metatrader and all kinds of resources. The first weekend I spend 36 hours non stop reading. Felt despair! and went on reading. For every topic I did not understand I sought more pdf’s. Opened a lot of demo accounts and did what I was good in. Analyzing and crunching data by mind. To tell you a secret - skilled mothers are data crunchers - otherwise they could not juggle every social interaction and demand in life.
I had 3 goals: to repair my damaged self, to hedge my financial situation, to fight unjust
systems. Noble goals, but they had to materialize and survive every attack made by my uninformed social network. Now for the main reasons I have not been trading earlier:
1)Over ten years ago; there weren’t enough free resources. Networks were insider closed
2)Spouse wasn’t too cooperative in helping to find work that match a woman’s difficult situation
3)Too little money of my own to invest without questioning by others
4)Huge social responsibility for everything household and social related things
5)Lack of good female role models (entrepreneurs) who keep standing on their own; independent from large firms
6)Guilt if anything would go wrong and the impact it would have on the family (risk avoidance)
I had all the ideas, but no money and no network; a dead end road. Having build my own home and lost it; I realized that every possible leverage went with it down the drain; and that paying large sums for a foundation was basically not different than doing grocery shopping. Thus I got more angry and put all that energy in trading. I got 3 main accounts. One 25 euro, 500 duizend, and one real account. Why because they train the mind all differently.
Back to my experiences with comments on me being a trader. Most comments are negatively and point out the gambling aspect or the fact that one has to sit in front of a computer all the time. I counter these arguments, that all pension plans are exchange traded money generators and that if men in suits earn respectable money; it would be hell better than saying I trade “the oldest female job in the world”. Brains before legs!
Now why I chose trading.
- A skill that would never die out
- A skill people can do with only as little as eyes, brains and a finger to push a button
- My money would be as good as everybody else’s money
- No discrimination
- No bother with all social handicaps (shyness, friendly, emotions all those attached to the female nature)
- No firm, boss or lousy manager who is too unwilling to take a risk with hiring some one with no flashy resume
- Enjoy my own working rhythm.
Why I think female traders can be very good
- Their social involvement ( I trade not only for my own benefit, but for that of my environment)
- Patience ( raising children is a long term investment with lots of risks)
- Calculating risk while multi tasking (I can trade in chaos, I have to)
- Better immune to testosterone blah blah and unethical risky trading
- They can take all the good examples from men, but leave out the shady part
- They can bring a whole lot of out of the box creative perspective on male dominated topics
- Skilled mothers (not the remote control types) handle complexity intuitively, which gives them an edge
Although I consider myself as a graduated newbie; I do see this path as a shock wave to female thinking. But that is all in a pioneering mindset. No fancy story of high heels and big firm names, but a lot of grown funny self-confidence.
Hello Mesmoiron,
this is a beautiful post…
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION, especially significant because so personal…
KEEP GOING and keep posting!!!
xxx