This is a guest post by Professor Cynthia Weber, Department of International Relations at the University of Sussex
Five months ago, ‘Michaela’ posted this query on the website Political Science Rumors in a thread called ‘a good place to study queer IR?’
- am currently a MA student looking to move into a PhD program in the next 2 years. I am interested in studying queer IR and was wondering if you can recommend some good programs. I’m more interested in systemic theorizing than individual level (1st image) type of stuff. Thanks.
A Google search for Political Science Rumors describes the site as ‘The forum for Political Scientists to discuss Political Science and rumors in the profession’. Others describe it more harshly: ‘Caffeinated’ describes it as ‘that nest of vipers’ that should not be listened to by anyone ‘unless you are a therapist and then please do!’. The site seems to be directed at ABDs, recent PhDs, and others just starting out in the field who are looking for information about educational programs, conferencing, publishing, and landing a job. But, as Caffeinated points out, it can have a nasty edge to it, which is something an MA student like Michaela would not necessarily know.
Michaela’s post generated four types of responses. One was to query what Queer IR is. A second was to answer her question with concrete suggests for where to study. A third was to warn her that studying Queer IR would never get her a job. A fourth was to be gleefully homophobic in ridiculing queers, Queer IR and specific pieces of Queer IR scholarship as well as OPs (Oppressed Peoples) and ‘our current crop of gender/ethnic/sexual “studies” departments’ that OPs apparently work in and support. A large number of posts – which I will not repeat here – were in this fourth category of responses. The website – which posts comments anonymously and refers to posters through randomly-generated pseudonyms – allows readers to vote ‘Yea’ in favor of posted comments or ‘Nay’ against posted comments. Leaving out comments that were ambiguous, this is how the votes tallied as of April 5, 2014:
- Openly Hostile and/or Overtly Homophobic posts: Yea – 210 Ney – 18
- Supportive/Constructive posts that answered Michaela’s question: Yea – 41 Ney – 3
- Fight-back posts against the Hostility and/or Homophobia: Yea – 9 Ney – 16
- Michaela’s original post asking where to study Queer IR was also voted on: Yea – 4; Ney – 8.
A colleague brought this feed to my attention because the Queer IR scholarship attacked in the feed was authored by me. After nearly three decades of doing poststructuralist, feminist and queer scholarship, such attacks are old news. What is deeply troubling to me about this feed is not what these attacks mean for me personally or for my scholarship but what the gleefully hostile and/or homophobic posts and their endorsements by the site’s community of readers do in and to (those in) the discipline of IR. Among the things they do are:
- Normalize the ‘non-OP’, who is presumptively white, heterosexual, heteronormative, cisgendered, hegemonically masculine, and US and the US-centric neo-positivist scholarship this figure produces in IR and in Political Science more generally as the standards against which all other scholars and all other scholarship are and should be judged;
- Set the ‘OP’ up as intolerably different because the ‘OP’ exemplifies an alternative way of thinking about and doing IR;
- Make the ‘OP’ bear the unjustified wrath of the normalized ‘non-OP’, who often takes it as his unquestionable right to define what ‘successful’ scholars and ‘successful’ scholarship look like in ways that protect ‘non-OP’ privilege as if it were neutral and natural;
- Bully the ‘OP’ into either assimilating to normalized ‘non-OP’ standards, giving up on their own intellectual interests, or fighting against ‘non-OP’ standards, even though the ‘OP’ generally lacks the disciplinary and material capital to make this a fair fight;
- Encourage a mode of unprofessional conduct within Political Science and IR that makes not only the intellectual work of the ‘OP’ impossible but the existence of the ‘OP’ within Political Science and IR impossible; and
- Celebrate this unprofessional conduct as if it were professional and professionalizing.
These techniques that set very specific kinds of normalizing disciplinary standards, bully individuals within the discipline, and pass as if they constituted professional disciplinary training do not come from nowhere. They are taught by some Political Science and IR professors (mainly normative ‘non-OP’) to their graduate students as part of the ‘professionalization process’. For this reason, we Political Science and IR professors are as responsible for the hostility and abuse directed toward non-normative students and colleagues and their non-normative approaches to scholarship as are the graduate students and junior colleagues who tend to use Political Science Rumors.
Rather than dismissing the snide comments on Political Science Rumors as harmless or laughing them off (as if homophobia were funny and not a system of power and pleasure that keeps one’s rivals in check; Schulman, 2009:47), we have a professional duty to recognize the damage these comments do in and to our discipline. We have a further obligation to check our own behavior if it teaches our students that it is perfectly acceptable to deauthorize vulnerable people and to marginalize their legitimate intellectual endeavors because they challenge our own. Instead of ridiculing and dismissing talented, non-normative scholars who think differently to us, we should strive to make their work possible rather than impossible and to value the contributions they and their work make to our profession.
This is not (as neo-positivists will likely interpret it) a call to do away with scholarly standards in favor of an ‘anything goes’ relativism. Nor is it a call for epistemological and methodological pluralism that is practiced through what Sarah Schulman calls ‘a false discourse of tolerance’ that suggests that excluded people ‘can be painlessly included without anyone else’s position having to be adjusted’ (Schulman, 2009:51). Rather, it is a call for scholarly standards to be applied fairly to all individuals and all work in the field. That requires us to build and enforce meritocracies that do not assume that what/who is normative is necessarily more or less valuable than what/who is non-normative.
The loss of unearned privilege that genuine meritocracy demands may well account for many of the Political Science Rumors posts in response to Michaela’s question. For as Schulman points out, ‘If success means opportunity at one’s level of merit, those now falsely inflated would be removed from the category of “successful”. This necessary equation, one that no one wants to admit to, reveals the frightening truth. Oppressed people, people unfairly excluded from full participation, cannot have their rightful place until the people who exclude them experience a diminishment of their own access and power’ (Schulman, 2009:51). This goes some way toward explaining why so-called Disciplinary IR has developed so many strategies for preserving its power.
Happily, a wide variety of scholars of Political Science and IR – from ‘mainstreamer’ to various types of ‘critical’ scholars – exhibit a very different kind of professional behavior that makes the careers of excellent yet marginalized scholars and their scholarship possible. It is these sorts of scholars who we should celebrate.
In that spirit, I want to conclude by celebrating some of the scholars inside, outside and on the edges of IR who have made my own work possible. These scholars include (but are certainly not limited to):
- John MacLean and Robert Cox, who taught me how to read IR through critical theory;
- Thaïs Morgan, who taught me how to read poststructuralism through feminist and queer lenses;
- Carol Cohn, who taught me what a considered gendered analysis in/of IR looks like;
- Spike Peterson and Ann Tickner, who taught me that if you build a platform for discussion about a marginalized topic like Feminist IR or Queer IR, people will find it, appreciate it, and use it to influence generations of scholars to come;
- Anna Agathangelou and LHM Ling, who taught me how the postcolonial ‘the House of IR’ organizes itself using race, gender, sexuality, and class;
- Michael Shapiro, who taught me how to do cultural critique as IR;
- Robert DiClerico, who taught me what excellent teaching looks like;
- Jim Rosenau, who taught me how to do research-led teaching;
- Diane Rubenstein, who taught me the seriousness of humor and how to mobilize it in IR;
- James Der Derian, who taught me it is possible to do filmmaking as IR;
- Rob Walker, who taught me how to mentor graduate students by mentoring me;
- Cynthia Enloe, who taught me how to write for 18 year olds and to aspire to be a kinder presence inside and outside of the discipline;
- Tim Luke, who taught me how to write for the future;
- Tom Biersteker, who taught me how to stand up for the IR underdog not just with words but with deeds;
- Sarah Schulman, who taught me how reasonable my anger is and how to use it more effectively in my thinking and my actions;
- Naeem Inayatullah, who taught me how to think fury globally and to take seriously the global fury of others;
- Richard Ashley, who taught me how to interrupt Disciplinary IR; and
- My colleagues in IR and Global Studies at Sussex University, who teach me what ideal forms of collegiality looks like by practicing them everyday.
I have failed to live up to every one of their intellectual and professional lessons in my turbulent career as an IR scholar and in my activist work inside and outside of the discipline. But I have never forgotten or taken for granted what these scholars so generously gave me and what their ethical professionalism does for so many others in the discipline and for the discipline. They – and many others like them – make my work possible.
I hope Michaela and the many more ‘Michaelas’ out there find supportive people like these who will make their work possible as they embark upon their personal and intellectual journeys in relation to IR.
Great points Cynthia. I made a new year’s resolution to avoid this website, partly because I couldn’t stand the constant trolling and trash talk. I think the incessant ranking of journals, profs, job candidates, universities etc that goes on is also a form of disciplining and silencing. Grad students reading this get explicit messages about their ‘pedigree’ and their prospects.
The author “forgot” an interesting type of comment: those who were advising the student not to pursue the root of “queer IR”. Some of the commenters told in fact “Michaela” to do something better with her life. If she wants to be an activist, she should do activism. Why take 5 years of her life to employ difficult words without really understanding what they mean?
Some of the commenters also pointed out the shameless, reckless and intellectually dishonest behavior of faculty who encourage this type of research and lure graduate students into their programs in order to have cheap labor to do TA work, and then when, they their graduate student will finish their degree and join the mass of unemployed and unemployable PhD in humanities, these faculty will likely scroll their head and just say “it’s getting worse and worse every year” – and blame “the system”.
Feel free to encourage this type of work, but then bear the personal, emotional and intellectual responsibility for each single life you have ruined by suggesting a career path that has no sense and will never pay back.
I have seen a lot of faculty like you. In their articles they invoke the most solemn principles, then they don’t give a crap about the life and career of young people who unfortunately end up asking for suggestion to the wrong people.
Even though I agree professors and scholars should be honest about the job prospects in entering the profession, this is well known. Although it was hard to hear, I’m thankful some of my mentors gave me “the lecture” before I applied to the PhD, letting me know how tough it is, that one should do it only if they can’t see themselves doing anything else, or be prepared for non-academic job prospects, etc. That said, it is ultimately the individual’s choice to obtain this information, consult numerous faculty, and weigh their options. Besides, the same issue is currently happening with law schools–it is increasingly difficult for graduates to find jobs. It is wrong here to troll this site and claim that Cynthia is “shameless, reckless, and intellectually dishonest” for “encouraging this type of research.” Professors like Cynthia do not “lure graduate students into their programs in order to have cheap labor,” in fact, I’d argue PhD admission is quite selective, and it’s their job to support a diversity of research should students wish to pursue it. It is, however, the students’ job to make themselves aware of job prospects by consulting organizations and individuals before applying. If asked, then faculty have the responsibility to be honest. Otherwise, I view this post as misplaced and misdirected.
I’ll explain you why you are wrong: asymmetric information.
20-something would-be graduate students do not know what the job market for PhD is and what non-academic opportunities exist for PhD in humanities. Encouraging them to spend 5 years of their life studying how gender preferences have something to do with international politics is simply criminal. It’s criminal because those five years are also those more important for a person’s career.
I have seen a lot of students like this – more likely than not, students who looked at their PhD as an opportunity for personal growth and discovery and hence went down the path of gender/queer/whatever theory. I am very sympathetic toward people who have been discriminated or have lived in non-inclusive environment and want to get past that and possibly even try to understand how to improve others’ lives. We can encourage them to do a PhD but we should make sure that it is valuable so that, by the time they are done, they will not find themselves unemployed and unemployable. When you are 28, have no valuable job experience and all you can do is to talk about what X author said and what Y author said and speak in an unnecessarily complicated language to explain quite simple points… yes, we have a problem. And whoever didn’t stop you bears a large part of that responsibility.
https://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/07/overeducated_underemployed.single.html
I do understand what you are saying, but I think this assumes academics are not giving their students accurate information, which I find to be a ridiculous claim. A) Almost every professor I spoke to about the PhD during undergrad simultaneously encouraged me, but warned me that I shouldn’t do it unless I couldn’t imagine myself doing anything else given how terrible the job prospects are. B) They provided a realistic assessment (e.g. you need to attend a top tier institution, get funding, increase publications, and so forth). So, I find it difficult to believe these students are walking into these programs rosey eyed and completely unaware of what they’re getting into. Sure, I would find it problematic if academics are not providing realistic advice to their students once they express an interest in the PhD, but I can’t imagine that Cynthia is encouraging this type of behavior. I just think some of the comments she’s receiving is classic internet trolling and are completely unnecessary or misplaced. Consider the comments below which strike me as unusual for the Duck even.
I do understand what you are saying, but I think this assumes academics are not giving their students accurate information, which I find to be a ridiculous claim. A) Almost every professor I spoke to about the PhD during undergrad simultaneously encouraged me, but warned me that I shouldn’t do it unless I couldn’t imagine myself doing anything else given how terrible the job prospects are. B) They provided a realistic assessment (e.g. you need to attend a top tier institution, get funding, increase publications, and so forth). So, I find it difficult to believe these students are walking into these programs rosey eyed and completely unaware of what they’re getting into. Sure, I would find it problematic if academics are not providing realistic advice to their students once they express an interest in the PhD, but I can’t imagine that Cynthia is encouraging this type of behavior. I just think some of the comments she’s receiving is classic internet trolling and are completely unnecessary or misplaced. Consider the comments below which strike me as unusual for the Duck even.
You’re absolutely right. All too often (at least in the U.S.) advisers and committee members don’t do enough to steer students in the right direction. Coming from a program where I had no guidance whatsoever, I continue to feel the brunt of this. I obsessed to the point of getting an ulcer over what the market would like/want by the time I was done. While it’s tough- if not impossible- to predict what the market will want five years from now, a lot of this work does seem to isolate students conducting research in it. That isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be a place in the literature or in the field for this kind of work in (which is the automatic counter-attack from the people who do it). BUT, for the past several years there has been an incredibly small demand for it – a demand that has become weaker with the poor shape of the economy. People doing this work should not conflate their enthusiasm for their topic with misguiding graduate students as to whether it will help them get a job.
‘OP’ means ‘original poster’, not ‘oppressed peoples’.
thanks for this. this shows my lack of experience with online language and my familiarity with the offline expression ‘op’ to mean ‘oppressed person’. this is my error, and it is right to call me on it. indeed, that’s part of what these discussions should be for – to hold scholars to account for factual errors and for us all to learn from these discussions, rather than for anyone’s assumptions and arguments to go unchecked or to be dismissed because of who they are or what issues their work addresses.
would you agree that the argument still stands? do you think that there is a figuration through these posts of some imaginary ‘oppressed person’ – the sort of person who Sarah Schulman defines as ‘people unfairly excluded from full participation’ who ‘cannot have their rightful place until the people who exclude them experience a diminishment of their own access and power’ (Schulman, 2009:51) – by some imaginary ‘non-oppressed person’ that attempts to regulate the conduct of ir scholarship and ir careers?
No doubt some of the posts could be read that way, but when I looked through it (I didn’t know that forum even existed before I read this post) I thought that the comments were very mixed and relatively mild as far as internet forums go. Yes, there are clear traces of homophobia in some of the posts, but also a lot of supportive suggestions. In my experience, IR academia is full of all sorts of bullied nerds, business jocks and other types, all of whom think that they are now masters of the universe. To get wound up by a few childish comments on an internet forum seems like a low threshold for your own stress-management, though I accept that you see it as symptomatic of a larger problem.
Mistaking ‘OP’ for ‘oppressed person’ rather than ‘original poster’ actually adds an interesting wrinkle to Weber’s argument. Many of the comments here have taken a rather paternalistic tone (and are even outright bullying) not so much to Michaela who was the original poster but to Weber for not properly disciplining the original poster who may also be an oppressed person. The original poster, the supportive respondent, and apparently any person with an original thought, must give way to the very practical argument that studying queer theory (or any other non-mainstream approach in IR) will not put food on the table. Not only is this argument anti-intellectual (Does no one believe in the work of academia?) it doesn’t comport with the history of the IR field which features many individuals who have taken personal risks to do the work they are passionate about, even in grad school and even before tenure, and in ways that have greatly impacted the study of IR. The fact that Weber and others want graduate students is reason alone to back off on the shrill gatekeeping that is going on here. Like any other tenured academic Weber has the institutional resources and networking to give Michaela and others a decent chance on the job market.
some people should be ashamed of themselves and question why the f… they are in academia in the first place. whether you agree with Cynthia Weber or not on the role of queer theory in IR is one thing , but the vitriol of some of the comments makes me sick to the core. it is despicable.
Spare us your fake outrage, “Tony.”
there is nothing fake about it. I believe in constructive criticism, I think there is a lot of queer IR done without having the name and I disagree with Cynthia. but I do not believe in homophobia and personal attacks. she has a right to express a standpoint and be treated like a mensch. there’s nothing fake about that.
I think one thing that should be addressed when considering the comments on PSR is that many posts are from academics who are jobless and have been unsuccessful even when they have followed all the rules of success (publishing, methods sophistication, pedigree, etc). Many posters are talented political scientists without job security. This breeds resentment toward researchers and research programs that seem disconnected from the reality of job market in the US. Callousness, schadenfreude, and nastiness are as much of a function of the awful job market conditions as they are about “strange” research.
I think one thing that should be addressed when considering the comments on PSR is that many posts are from academics who are jobless and have been unsuccessful even when they have followed all the rules of success (publishing, methods sophistication, pedigree, etc). Many posters are talented political scientists without job security. This breeds resentment toward researchers and research programs that seem disconnected from the reality of job market in the US. Callousness, schadenfreude, and nastiness are as much of a function of the awful job market conditions as they are about “strange” research.
So, as thoughtful as Weber’s post is, she critically and completely misses the context of the forum she participated in and has written (largely) negatively about.
The comments on any blog post about queer International Relations justify the existence of (and need for) queer International Relations. Let us henceforth call it Weber’s Law.
Here and at PSR, there are plenty of claims about the value of this or that research, but curiously little analysis. Which is interesting given the readiness of so many on these threads are to proclaim their own brilliance as thinkers. The closest we get to critical evaluation is a rejection of ‘political’ or ‘activist’ claims in academic research, as if being against homophobia was a dangerous bias in a way that being for the national interest obviously isn’t.
It’s hard to believe that any of those denouncing the EJIR piece had actually read it. Certainly they showed no sign of doing so in their comments. Could there be a clearer indication of academic privilege? Denunciation without analysis, personal insults without evidence, pontification about how to get jobs from people without them, and political speech masquerading as apolitical fact talk.
All post-positivist scholars have in fact read, understood, and mastered the basis of statistical analysis. That’s why the criticize it. #sure. #hello #noshame.
ps: maybe you want to address your cognitive dissonance and realize that homophobia has nothing to do with the judgement of queer theory.
This rather supports my point. The flaws or otherwise of post-structuralist IR are irrelevant to the question of whether or not people should actually read some queer IR before announcing that it is dangerous charlatan junk.
Armchair psychology aside, you can disagree with queer theory without being homophobic, and I said nothing to suggest that opposition to queer theory was driven by homophobia. What I pointed out was that the ‘political bias’ of queer theory (its concern in part with opposing and deconstructing homophobia) is not self-evidently a worse crime than the ‘political bias’ of any other approach within IR (whether for the national interest, in opposition to terrorism, for the growth of liberal markets, against ethnic cleansing, and so on).
There may indeed be important problems with a queer theoretical lens, including in terms of its political assumptions, but this has to be actually argued for, with some evidence of basic comprehension, not asserted as if it was obvious that the mere appearance of the word ‘queer’ signified the death of rigour.
There are no critiques so far as I can see, merely assertions wrapped in sniggers and bile. Calling ‘Faking It’ garbage (it was “shit” in your first attempt) isn’t actually much of a riposte.
And it wasn’t a premise, it was a riff on an existing observation (“Lewis’ Law”) that the kinds of comments left on articles about feminism tend to engage in exactly the kind of abuse and misinformation that the authors are identifying. You seem to regard that contempt as all queer IR deserves, but you are rather helping make the point.
I want to thank members of our community who are engaging these important issues with respect and gravitas. A number of comments on this thread have been deleted because they contained put-downs and ad hominem attacks or otherwise detracted from thoughtful, deliberative speech appropriate to an academic blog. Another has been edited to remove terms like “disgusting” which are inappropriate when directed at a fellow academic’s arguments.
Commenters are reminded of the Duck’s commenting policy: “We expect some basic level of civility from members of our community. We will, at a minimum, edit comments we deem particularly noxious or engaged in unproductive trolling. We reserve the right to disemvowel or delete comments; we will exercise this right at our discretion.”
Censorship is always bad. It’s like truncating your dataset to favor some results, or doing sloppy case selection to support your arguments.
I am not implying this is what queer theory does. Not at all.
Absolutist statements containing words like “always” and “bad” are very rarely defensible in describing social phenomena which are generally messy and complex.
There is a difference between censorship and the production of a civil, safe space. Insisting that participants in an intellectual discussion refrain from name-calling and other ad hominem fallacies strikes me as the latter, not the former.
One of the comments banned was a response to a comment of mine, and it read something like this:
“A link to slate, rofl”
Not sure where was the name-calling or the ad hominem fallacy.
IN any case, if some comments are uncivil, do you think the readers will not notice? That they will not be able to evaluate the strength of a comment? Bringing patronizing to a whole new level…
ps: the response by Charli is a great example of non-sequitur. Or she didn’t understand Ringo’s point. Not sure what is worse.
Slate is a very sexist magazine, and shame on you to have linked it. You comment should be banned to.
The best example is their article on the gender gap. ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL. How did they there? If the data say there’s no gender pay gap, clearly the data must be wrong.
https://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gender_pay_gap_the_familiar_line_that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html
Slate is a very sexist magazine, and shame on you to have linked it. You comment should be banned to.
The best example is their article on the gender gap. ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL. How did they there? If the data say there’s no gender pay gap, clearly the data must be wrong.
https://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gender_pay_gap_the_familiar_line_that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html
I wonder to what extent it is legitimate to overlook articles which have used queer theory within IR, yet do not feature in top ranked journals. This is what I find so troubling with the article in EJIR. Setting up this benchmark (i.e. only articles in top ranked journals ‘count’) is not only elitist, but goes against the basic premise of queer theory in the first place. If this is not wilfully done, it signifies a key omission on the author’s part.
thank you for this comment. and thank you for engaging with the EJIR article itself.
as your rightly point out, queer theory in top ranked IR journals should not be the measure of whether or not something that might be called queer international theory exists. my article notes this absence (which is an important absence given how disciplinary power works in IR and how that can translate into who gets jobs, promotions, tenure, grants, etc) NOT to explore how, as the title of the article asks, ‘why there is no queer international theory?’ but to explore how so-called disciplinary IR maintains the impression that there is no queer international theory.
i put it like this in the article:
‘This suggests that multiple queer international theories do exist, which means we need to ask a different question: why does there appear to be no Queer International Theory?
‘My claim is that the presumed non-existence of Queer International Theory cannot be explained merely by its absence from prestigious IR journals and book series because this absence is the (un)conscious effect of how so-called Disciplinary IR codes various types of theory as failures.’
the article then details my analysis of how the apparent non-existence of queer international theory is maintained.
so i agree with you that this is a false test for the existence of queer international theories. but i would also suggest that this is the test that so-called disciplinary IR itself uses so often. indeed, it would appear that the ire of some scholars in relation to my EJIR article is not about the argument itself but that it was published in a top IR journal. comments made about the article’s publication in EJIR range from things like (i’m paraphrasing here) – ‘it would have been fine to publish this article in a journal like Millennium or International Theory but not in EJIR’ or ‘get your own journals but don’t publish in our IR journals’ to comments like how the publication of my article in EJIR diminishes the status of EJIR.
because where one publishes has consequences for jobs, grants, tenure, and promotion, and because for the most part so-called disciplinary IR hasn’t accept much queer international theory as appropriate for its top publishing outlets (even when this work is begrudgingly acknowledge as good scholarship), that’s why the argument in my Duck post about meritocracy and its enforcement in IR is, i think, so vital – not just for queer international theories but for all international theories from so-called mainstream to so-called critical. as i put it in this Duck post:
‘it is a call for scholarly standards to be applied fairly to all individuals and all work in the field. That requires us to build and enforce meritocracies that do not assume that what/who is normative is necessarily more or less valuable than what/who is non-normative.’
After going through the PSR thread several times, reading this article, and looking up abstracts of Dr. Weber’s work, I still have no idea what Queer IR could possibly mean.
I admit that I haven’t read the article and am not into IR, coming from a different disciplinary background. I take the word queer to mean disrupt and question the mainstream, the unquestioned, taken for granted. But not sure if requires a subfield for that.
Did Dr. Weber really fail to notice “Michaela’s” second post (the third post of the thread)? The user was obviously trolling the PSR community with an asinine request. The fact that it was taken seriously despite the utterly transparent sarcasm is telling.
Or perhaps Queer IR truly does study “phallic nuclear weapons, penetration of forces, and so on,” to quote poor Michaela.
After my first job which saw me earning $2500 a month I
thought it was all over for me and that my life has come to an end. That was
what I thought with an age d mother and my wife dying of cancer and 3 kids all I
could said to myself was how was I going to take care of them. That was when I
was introduce to Dr abgbodospell home when I contacted him and told he all I
have been facing in my life. He said he was going to make me smile and he
actually did because he made me got my job back and companies I did not applied
for begging for my service. That is not all he also cure my wife cancer and my
2 years weak erection problem. You can get to him at dragbodospell@gmail.com or call +2348169591194 and for any of the
following
Cancer
Weak erection
Barrenness
Quick job
Promotion at work
How to get your back
And any spiritual problems please get to him dragbodospell@gmail.com or call
+2348169591194
My name is Melisa am from France I just want to use this opportunity to thank Dr
agbodo, how he help me got my job back
and restore my life. After I lost my job I did not know how to get back
the job. Because it mean a lot to me. I search every where to see if can get a
solution to it no avail until I came across a post of the same man and how he
has been helping people to get their job back. When I contacted him and told
him my problem his question was where do I want to work and how much do I want
to earn I was confuse because I have never seen any thing like that all my life
I thought it was a joke. Until few week later I was called back to work and
also promoted that in include the salary going higher. Am so happy now you too
can be happy like me if you are in the
same problem here are his contacts
dragbodospell9@gmail.com or call him
+2348169591194 for any of the following he is available
Good job with good pay
Poor ejaculation
Barrenness
Mental problems
A good life partner
cancer
Want your ex back
Total weakness of the body
And any spiritual problems and curses
Contact him dragbodospell9@gmail.com or call +2348169591194