God’s Thoughts on Gender Roles: Part 2, “The Genesis of Gender”

God's Thoughts on Gender Roles 2

Should women employ men? Is it okay for men to cry? Biblically speaking, can a woman be president? What does God think of a stay-at-home-dad?

I hope to be able to deal with these questions and more for as long as the Lord allows us to keep up this discussion concerning men, women, and God’s plan for them in this world.

To understand the complete picture of the sexes, though, we must return to the beginning; the very beginning. Let us start with Creation. In Genesis 2:7 we read that God formed man out of the dust of the ground. God subsequently breathed into this man the breath of life (something He did not do for any other living creature). Following an unknown period of time in which Adam named the animals, God deemed it necessary to provide Adam a mate (Gen 2:19-20). Many have conjectured as to why God would wait so long. We assume when all of the other animals and birds were created, both males and females were created at the same time. Yet, God chose to make Adam significantly earlier than Eve. Here are some general items of note. Please understand that these passages do not as of yet provide any commands for the sexes, but do lay out some interesting principles and observations.

1. Adam (the male) received a unique creative process before Eve (the female).

2. Adam was allowed to live a span of time before Eve was created.

As we continue with the narrative, we hear God commenting that it isn’t good for man to be alone. It is for this reason that God said He would create a corresponding partner for Adam that will help him (2:18). The idea of “help” is a simple one. Help means to give assistance to or promote. Help is never offered from the standpoint of superiority. That is not to say that a superior cannot give help, but it is a willful submission that puts the helpers needs and desires below the one being helped. Something is always sacrificed to further the goals of the helpee. Eve was created to help Adam, not the other way around.

Here are some more observations thus far:

3. Eve’s creation was predicated on the fact that Adam needed someone to help him.

4. Eve was created to be that helper.

5. Eve was created using a piece of Adam. She was not created the same way Adam was.

6. They were commanded to bond in such a way as to create “one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24)

Again, all we have here are steps and stages. Can a doctrine of gender be construed from mere observations of form? I believe the answer is “yes” . . . to a degree. It is important to notice that God is very metaphorical. Symbolism plays a significant part in the revelation of God and His will. For God, the simplicity of the creative act is evident. He was not required to use six days, nor did He have to rest on the seventh. He could have created the world in an instant, but He chose to communicate to us via form and stages. I believe we have the same evidences here. Our Lord is a God of order. He created the home before the government which He created before the church. There are important truths to be understood in that created order. This is not to say that the highest life forms are fish and fowl simply because the were created first (we cannot misapply our hermeneutic), but it is evident that there was a purpose for Adam’s creation precipitating Eve’s.

What are the applications? I think we should wait a moment before delving into that channel. There is another Genesis passage we must consult before we can accurately apply these observations to ourselves. At this point Adam and Eve lived in an innocent stage of life. They did not know what good or evil was. We do not exist in that realm, so it is wise to note God’s ordinances for their relationship after sin was introduced to the world.

The fruit was eaten. Sin contaminated the human race. God passed judgment. In Genesis 3:16 God said to Eve, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” The final two statements bear study. 1. “Your desire will be for your husband” is not a romantic idea. To base feminine romantic preoccupation on this verse is blatantly fallacious. The idea in the original language is that “Your desire will be against your husband.” God is saying that you will “stretch out against” your husband’s authority. Interpreting this prediction would be difficult if it were not for the final statement, “And he will rule over you.” 2. To rule is to have dominion over, to reign over, to have power over. God told Eve that even though she would innately desire to have authority over her husband, she would have to submit to his will.

This verse contains a divine proclamation of order.

7. The husband will rule over the wife.

It is important to note at this juncture that the context is not that women will be ruled over by men. The proclamation is clearly set forth for the marriage relationship.

So what does the “Genesis of Gender” teach us about the roles of men and women?

1. Adam (the male) received a unique creative process before Eve. God chose for man to have an unequalled status concerning women. There is a clear preeminence shown in the creation timeline. As to its ultimate application, I do not believe we can be bold utilizing this passage alone.

2. Adam was allowed to live a span of time before Eve was created. This seems to illustrate the above point.

3. Eve’s creation was predicated on the fact that Adam needed someone to help him. Seemingly, the woman had no reason for existence had man never been created. Her founding purpose is tied to the man’s needs. There is no reason to argue that her core purpose has changed throughout the years. If, in a perfect world, a woman’s highest calling was to be the perfect completer of a man, what makes us think that God created a lesser purpose because of sin? Could their be a higher purpose if the original was perfect as it was?

4. Eve was created to be that helper. No one can help a man like a woman. Side Note: It can be inferred that a man cannot help a man nor a woman a woman the way God intended. This must be a potent observation for homosexuals.

5. Eve was created using a piece of Adam. She was not created the same way Adam was. I have two observations. First, it is undeniable that Eve was the secondary creation in the human race. In fact, as far as we know, she was the last direct creation. Therefore, the creative process leads us to think there is a difference in God’s mind between the man and woman. Eve represented a portion of man as she was removed from his chest. Her entire being was created by his rib. What exactly the difference is between men and women I do not believe can be extrapalated from this passage. But it definately cannot be said that Eve was as common as an animal. Her unique creation and the fact that she was rooted in the equally unique creation of man shows that she is much more than animal and should be treated as such. The rule Adam was given over Eve is not the same dominion that Adam and Eve were given over the world. Eve was not a possession nor a lower life-form. She was a co-steward over the rest of God’s created world. Women today share this responsibility with men as they always have.

6. They were commanded to bond in such a way as to create “one flesh.” In marriage there is a unique relationship formed that transcends all other human relationships. Though husband and wife become a single entity, do not make the fundamental flaw that both are completely equal in all matters. The Trinity is a perfect example for us. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all 100% God. They do not differ in composition, but there is a divinely ordained hierarchy within the perfect unity. The same is true in husband/wife relationships.

7. The husband will rule over the wife. In this sinful world, God ordained that the man (an obvious choice given the aforementioned priority put on man) be the final word in the marriage relationship. There is no misconstruing God’s words on this point. To argue it would be to say God messed up.

So, can we start applying now? I believe we can.

A. As I mentioned before, we cannot be dogmatic at this point in our study in the application of our first two points. Yes, man was created first. Yes, certain rights and privileges were given to Adam long before Eve was created. But, to step into clear delineations between voting rights or employment is overreaching God’s Word.

B. We must acknowledge that women were created for men. This truth stands in the face of most contemporary feministic movements that purport that women don’t need men. In truth, men need women, and women need to fulfill that need within God’s will.

C. Within the marriage relationship (which I believe it is safe to say that women were created to participate in) the man is to be the leader.

So, let’s tackle one of the questions I opened with. How about last one? Does this passage have any bearing on a father being a stay-at-home-dad? I believe it does. But it’s not so much the action of staying-at-home as it is the attitude behind it. I have a friend whose wife is an anesthesiologist. She works and he takes care of their three children. Now, I am not intimately familiar with the unique dynamics within their house, but let’s say for sake of argument that the wife is the head of the household. She wants her career and she expects her husband to support her in that. Well, there’s a clear biblical problem with that. She would be obviously be desiring (and usurping) her husband’s authority. On the other hand, if the husband has chosen that his wife’s skills are far more conducive than his in providing for the family and maintaining the standard of living the family is used to, and they have come to an agreement that this is God’s will for their family under the direction of the husband . . . then I believe all is well.

We may encounter other passages along the way that would contradict our current application, and if that happens we need to reapply in order to take into consideration the whole counsel of God. But for now, we must accept that man and woman were created in two unique ways for two unique purposes and given two unique sets of responsibilities.

Your thoughts, questions, concerns, and observations are always invited and I hope we can sharpen each other through this discussion.

Click here to read Part I: God’s Thoughts on Gender Roles.

14 thoughts on “God’s Thoughts on Gender Roles: Part 2, “The Genesis of Gender”

  1. What I do not understand is why this does not apply to all animals in the animal kingdom? If God specifically had already created male/female animal pairs, why did he not do the same for the human when he created Adam in the first place? The “literal” interpretation of Genesis seems to leave more questions than answers. However, if read as an allegorical story of creation (like we should with the whole Bible IMO) then it is a beautiful story. But like all literalists you turn it into something ugly and self-serving.


  2. AMBrewster

    1. Humans received a unique creation because they are unique. We are not animals. We have a soul that will live for eternity. Animals do not. We did not evolve from lower life forms, we recieved a special creative act in which we were formed in the image of God. This is a glorious thing I am extremely thankful for.
    2. We do not know all of the reasons God created Adam first, but I have enumerated some above, and we will discuss more implications later.
    3. If you have any specific questions concerning the Creation account, I will do my best to answer them from God’s Word.
    4. The Bible is not to be read allegorically. It isn’t an allegory. It’s an accurate, literal account of history that has never been disproven. In fact, all archeological finds and solid science support the scriptures. In addition, if the Bible must be read merely as a figurative work, where is the application? How can I know for sure that Heaven and Hell really exist? How can I know that Jesus Christ has actually purged my sins? If the Bible is a metaphor then we have no hope as human beings. If the Bible is a metaphore . . . what’s the point?
    5. I’m not 100% sure what you mean by turning this account into something “ugly and self-serving.” I don’t see how studying and applying God’s perfect plan is ugly.

    I don’t want to assume anything of you that is not true, but you must understand that this is what Taking Back the Bible is all about. We cannot pick and choose the parts of the Bible we like. We cannot capriciously decide to read some portions as fantasy and others as history. We must read God’s Word the way He intended it. Every time God uses symbolism and mataphor, He explains it for us. He never leaves us having to guess at what He means. Yes, there are difficult passages, and yes, we humans don’t know everything, but if God can’t get it right . . . we are a hopless lot indeed.


  3. So if we are to follow ALL of the rules, regulations and stipulations that are enumerated in the Book, may I ask you then:

    1. How many articles of clothing do you wear that are poly/cotton blend?
    2. When was the last time you ate shell fish of any sort?
    3. Do you wear leather shoes?
    4. Have you ever held your wife’s hand or touched her hair while she was in menses?
    5. Have you ever cut your hair or trimmed your beard?
    6. When was the last time you inadvertently went 1 mile per hour over the posted speed limit?
    7. Have you prayed for the President lately?
    8. Would you submit to a law that Congress passed that you do not agree with?

    It is all well and fine for you to chose to take a literal approach to the Bible, but you either need to take it all as literal, every word, every command, and every thing about it that would disrupt your modern life. But, if on the other hand, you think that you can find a way to weasel out of the things that you don’t like, then you are a pretender and need to stop.

    The thing I find most amazing about people who post things about women and their place in society, and then quote the creation account is that they never seem to want to go into it and read it with a fresh look, or to learn something new. They always go into it with a concretely held conviction that women are the second class sex due to how and why they were created. What no one seems to think about is that God’s LAST act of creation was to create woman. His pinnacle of creation, that which should be revered above all else. He made Adam from dirt. He took a piece of man and reshaped it into a perfect life giving being, the only member of humanity to be able to bring life into this world, if anyone was created in His image it was woman, not man. Men grunt and rut on a woman to give her what is required, but the woman nurtures, protects and bears the fruit of life in the same way that God did. So she should be revered above all other creation.

    The other side of this coin, is why? Why did God not create the female counterpart to male at the same time? Was it to teach man a lesson? If so then that lesson should be that we are not above all things. If man were to be above all things, then we should have been created first. Instead we are last. Does it not then make sense that our job on this planet should be to take care of the things that came before us? If that is the case, then Christians need to do a better job of taking care of the creation around them…

    Also why are there two creation accounts? One in Chapter 1 and then another in Chapter 2? It seems to me that if God created the whole earth in 7 days, then rested, why would He need to create a separate Garden, then create MORE trees, MORE plants for it, the two forbidden trees, and all the other stuff that chapter 2 tells us He did?And then send them in front of Adam to give them names? I would have been far more impressed with the author of Genesis if he had named EVERY single plant, animal, fish, fowl and insect on the earth as part of the account. I wonder, what would an ancient Jew who had never seen a Bengal Tiger have called it? Would they have thought it was part of God’s creation of something of the devil?

    I am not trying to hound you or shake your faith, but you need to think outside the box more. I applaud you for being so steadfast in your faith. But, you need to understand that not everyone shares your belief that women are inferior and should be subjected to men. And when your convictions move from the pulpit to the public square, then sir, you and I have a problem. You and the people who share your faith are trying to undo almost a hundred years of the advancement of women by enacting legislation meant to “keep them where they belong.” so to speak. This cannot be allowed. For if the only reason you seek to to keep women subjugated to men is based solely on biblical “truth” that has no place in a set of civil law.


  4. And your snide little comment about homosexuals is just insulting. You do not get to determine what help people need, desire, or require. What is right for you is not right for every one. Again, no one is telling you what you can or cannot preach in your church or home, but when you try to limit CIVIL (not the religious ceremony) then again, you and I have a problem. CIVIL marriage is not the same as the sacrament of marriage. EVERY person who wants to get married has to go to city hall to get a marriage license. But if a Hindu walks into a Baptist church and demands a Hindu ceremony, the minister of said Baptist church has every right to refuse them the use of his facility. BUT, if his church maintains a public piece of property (like the facility in NJ that the FAF, NOM and FotF, like to scream about) and the church refuses to let a gay couple use it, then YES they should lose their tax exemption for that property. So you need to learn to keep your religion out of government, or sure a God made little green apples, the government is going to get involved in your religion, and somehow I don’t think you would like that very much. Especially if said government were Catholic…food for thought.


  5. AMBrewster

    First, I look forward to discussing these issues with you, but please do not project the problems you see in other people on to me. Some of the things you were saying were things I COMPLETELY agree with and said as much in my original post. I do not like to be called a liar (as I’m sure you do not either). So, please do not accuse me of saying something I have not said.

    1. The Bible is extremely clear that Christ’s New Covenant did away with the ceremonial and sundry laws of the Old Covenant. There are numerous New Testament passages that address this. For sake of time I will illustrate one: In Acts 10 Peter is given a vision by God which completely changes the dietary laws that Jews were supposed to follow in the Old Testament. I do follow a literal interpretation of the Bible and I do not try to weasle my way out of any divine commands. Nor am I a pretender.

    2. I have never once said that women are inferior to men. I do not believe they are second class citizens, she is not a possession, she is not somehow less human. She is as unique a creation as man is. I can never quite understand individuals who balk at the idea od authority when they live in a country with a president, submit to the rules of police officers, work for a boss, and obey their teachers. Why do we hate the idea that God has ordained a natural leadership structure in the home? Why can we vote on our next CEO, but reject a husbands authority within the four walls of his house?

    3. In regard to the “two” creation accounts. As a teacher of many things including economics, I can attest to the fact that the opening chapters of the book are very general in nature. They lay out a sweeping picture of the broad ideas of economics. The subsequent chapters then go into more detail. In chapter one we see a broad brush-stroke of the creation story. Chapter two simply rewinds a little and goes into some more specific detail as to the order it was all accomplished in.

    4. Once again, please take me at my word that I do not believe women are inferior. Your language has been very value-laden. We are all supposed to “submit” to our authority, but that is not a negative thing.

    I do believe that women should be able to vote. I believe they have the right to employ men. I believe they can be a president or a queen. Do not, I beg you, misconstrue my opinion of women.


  6. AMBrewster

    In regard to your comments on homosexuality. I hope you can see that this has nothing to do with my opinions. I am using God’s Word and citing various scriptures. The only point I was making is that God created women as the perfect help for men. That should tell us something.

    Also, our constitution says that the government should not be involved in religion. It is impossible for religion to not be involved in government. Everyone worships something. Those beliefs affect every decision made by every individual. I am not trying to make a civil case. I am merely applying God’s Word to our lives.


  7. Did Moses write chapters and verses? I believe those were not introduced until thousands of years later. The book of Genesis was written as a narative with two creation accounts at the beginning. So to talk about the first “chapter” of Genesis as a general introduction is not a valid argument.

    Your verbiage is greaty offensive to me. The way you talk about women is misogynestic. I believe throughout the Bible God shows that women are to be chedrished, loved, cared for and treated as a partner. Not to be ruled over and treated as just a man-helper.

    Indeed we see many strong, women who lead men and the Isrealites throughout the Bible. One of my favorites is Judith. What an amazing, single woman (she had been widowed by the time of her heroism). She was excedingly wize, gorgeous, inteligent and cunning. Moreover, she was physically strong – she was able to cut the head off her adversary. The whole whle maintaining her virtue. Then, Judith lead the thanksgiving to God for delivering the Isralites from the Assyrians. Judith lead the worship. And she was revered even after her death.

    Deborah is another that comes to mind. Deborah was placed in a positon of authority over the Isrealites. She was a prophetess, judge, and military commander. If I am to take what you are suggesting to its logical end, then the Chidren of Israel should have never listened to nor obeyed the authoriy of Deborah.


  8. AMBrewster

    Wow, MitigationElf. Once again I am left stunned by the rampant assumptions being made concerning my comments. No where have I said that women are to be “ruled over and treated as a man-helper.” I cannot address these accusations given the fact that I never said anything like that. Instead, I agree almost completely with your entire point.

    Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, Mary mother of Jesus, Ruth, Esther, Deborah, the prophetesses, Sarah (the list could continue) are all amazing women of the faith whom God used mightily.

    No one was supposed to take anything I said to any “logical end.” My discussion concerning gender roles is a multi-part article tracing biblical subject matter. I was only commenting on the few verses in Genesis. I, by no means, was delivering a comprehensive talk on the subject.

    There are many popular beliefs about women that I want to put to rest. If you had read my first blog on the subject you would have seen that I stand against most gender stero-typing. I do not think the wife can only glorify God by staying home with the children. I do not think that men are rule over women, and nothing that I have said insinuates that. In fact, I specifically said, “It is important to note at this juncture that the context is not that women will be ruled over by men.” I openly admit that Christ was more loving and honoring toward women than any other man of His age. I believe women are to be cherished and loved. Men are commanded to do so in the NT.

    Ladies and gentlemen, if I have misrepresented the Scriptures, please show me how I have done so. When I get to the other portions of the Bible, I will use the principles and commands gleaned there to broaden our view of biblical gender roles. I will not attempt to write a single post on the subject. We’ll take it piece by piece.

    I appreciate discussion and debate, but I do not appreciate being told that I said something I did not. That is no more helpful than rumors, gossip, and lies.

    I will now address your comments about Genesis. If you believe God created the world twice, fine. You may believe whatever you desire. It’s America. But please understand that nothing you said about the chapter and verses has any bearing on the discussion. Ancient forms of story-telling have used a prologue-type story synopsis to introduce the main story for as long as people have been telling stories. In fact, this method has even been found in Shakespeare’s writings. It was until recent years that people stopped using this framework. My point is, there is no literary, grammatical, historical, poetical, and definately no scriptural grounds for thinking that the two creation accounts are not the same event.


  9. I am sorry if I took your comments here wrong. I goes growing up “with a literal interpretation of the Bible” I take literal to mean literal. I do disagree with you saying that the Bible is a literal account of history. I believe that to be an inaccurate statement. It is SCIENTIFICALLY impossible for the earth to stand still for a day, it is scientifically impossible for an axe head to float on water, it is scientifically impossible for a single lamp of oil to burn however long it did until more oil was pressed. These things are allegories. Not statements of fact. Preachers these days do it all the time! I am GRAVELY concerned about people who put faith above science and then say that scientist are LIARS when all they are doing is reporting back facts as they have be observed and documented, while preachers from the pulpit preach on how they see things and interpret them from the Bible. Science has done wonderful things for us.

    Now on to homosexuality. Here is the thing, you are right we are under grace not under the law. I understand that and believe it wholeheartedly. It is funny how in Peter’s vision, only the things we can eat were declared clean. But nothing else? That is silly. If all those things were made clean to the Jewish Christians by the act of Christ, then all things that God declared are “wrong” or “sinful” or “detestable” or any other adjective that you or any other christian wants to assign to LGBT people is gone as well. Again you can not beat gay people over the head with Leviticus 18:22, but then say that Peter says its ok to wear poly/cotton blends, and eat bacon, but they can’t love whom they chose because the Bible says so. So you see how ridiculous that sounds?

    (Please understand that when I say “you” I am referring to all of you on the supposed right who claim to fight for the family under the guise of limiting civil freedoms and are trying to institute Christian Sharia law in this country.)

    Imagine for a moment, if you would, a world where Christians were in the minority. Suddenly someone says that it should be illegal to take Communion because people see it as literally eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. “That is cannibalism!’ they would say. You know that you are not literally eating the body of Christ. You are consuming the bread that represents his body. But Catholics, who make up the major portion of religion in this world, see it as literal. So since that group sees it that way, EVERYONE is now banned from doing it. They pass constitutional amendments that limit what you can and cannot eat in church. A few states hold out and don’t pass those bans, but the majority do. That is what your side and those that claim to fight for you are doing to LGBT people over marriage. “Marriage has not changed in millennia!” they claim. But the truth is it has. You know it, you read in the Bible that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. You know that Abraham, the very father of three faiths, took his wife’s handmaiden to give him a son. The bible is filled with marriage contradictions. Yet, your side still wants to limit CIVIL – not religious – marriage to only those they feel deserve it. Your side enshrines heterosexuality and holds up on a pedestal just like they used to do with the color of their skin, make no mistake the argument is no different.

    You may, as a Christian, feel that homosexuality is abomination. You may well hold up those 8 verses that condemn it and yell at the top of your lungs it is wrong. But, in America, you can’t take those convictions and deny the very person you are railing against his very civil rights. You may bar him from your church and deny him and the man he loves the use of your sanctuary, but you cannot deny him his dignity nor his rights under the law of the land.

    I have said my piece and I will not post here again, nor read this blog any longer, but I hope that you will consider what I have said, as I have considered your points as well. I agree that God does indeed create gender, and he gave us all roles to play. But how do you explain the children the maker has created with both sets of genitals? What gender are they? Who decides? They are real and they are out there. They are not freaks, but scarred people. People whose parents faced a devastating decision, what if they chose wrong? What if they made him a boy but he should have been a girl? What if they had just left that child alone and let them make their own decision when they are able? If God makes children out of the womb with two sets of genitalia, then why is it so much of a stretch to think that he makes LGBT people that way as well, and expects them to make their own decision as to what they consider “natural affection”?


    1. AMBrewster

      I appreciate your passion. I also appreciate that you took the antagonism down a few notches. :-)

      I hope our paths will cross again. Any time I have the opportunity to be strengthened in my beliefs by being confronted by God’s Word, I cherish it.

      Please allow me to give you one last encouragement: God is Who He says He is. If He cannot suspend the natural laws He created, how can I trust Him to overcome sin and death? If God can’t defy our mortal assumptions concerning this temporal world, how can He give me life in the next?

      Take God at His Word.



  10. AMBrewster

    The following is a comment that was left on my Facebook page.

    “I agree with the paragraphs where you established the roles of the man and wife. They are very sound points as to the heirarchy in the home is concerned. I did, however, disagree with some of the application of the principles you outlined. Biblically speaking, it is my point of view that the man is to be the protector and the provider regardless of who is more capable of doing so. Let us consider Ephesians 5, where the husband and wife relationship is explained. The husband is to “love their wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it.” This is God’s plan for man to protect his wife. Let us also consider I Timothy 5:8 which states, ” But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Here the masculine word he indicates that the man is to be to the ‘primary bread winner.’ Other verses in this passage, use the word she, but this one specifically uses the word ‘he.’ This verse seems to indicate that the man is too be the provider.
    The role of the wife is that as a homemaker. Many people who advocate wives/mothers working outside the home use the Proverbs 31 woman. May I bring to your attention some of things she does. She sews, gardens, and cares for her children. Proverbs 31:15 says, ” she… Giveth meat to her HOUSEHOLD.” Titus 2 gives instruction on how the elder men should teach the younger men, and how the younger women should teach the younger women. One of the things that is to be taught to the younger women is to be “keepers at home.” The primary role of the wife is to be a homemaker.
    In conclusion, I agree with your pinciple because your principle is quite biblically sound. I disagree with the application of the principles based on what I believe is Biblical principle.”
    -David Joiner-


    1. AMBrewster

      I’d like to just remind everyone that this study is a growing process. I do not intend to deal with every single applicable Scripture in the very first posts. We will apply as we progress. This is true of the Christian life as well. We should apply God’s truth as we encounter it in His Word and then tweek those applications as more truth is revealed to us.

      David, you make good points that we will be dealing with in later posts. Stay tuned!


What're your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s