The Radish Forum Index
The University of Birmingham discussion board: underground, uncensored, online :: engage@theradish.org.uk
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log inLog in            Calendar

Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   



COMPULSORY UPGRADE Request an upgrade NOW! 32+ Pre-installed Modifications! 3 Server Locations to choose from: USA, UK and JAPAN.

11th December 2012 - CreatephpBB: All servers are upgraded to run using SSD drive. Click Here to report problems!

Feature: Pressing Issue 105: Feminism

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Radish Forum Index -> Articles
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
V
Indymedia Hound
Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 22
:

Items
PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:00 pm    Post subject: Feature: Pressing Issue 105: Feminism Reply with quote

By Emily B. Demented

Can I shock you? I’m a woman, but I think abortion is wrong. There, that surprised you didn’t it? I bet you thought that every British woman was in favour of abortion. You’re wrong, so wrong. Some of us don’t want to murder our babies. We want to be mothers, we want to cradle our darling little ones on our knees. I don’t care if the father is a crack addict and my baby’s missing a spinal cord. I’m a decent woman and I’m quite against slaughtering babies.

It’s all the fault of these beastly feminists. Feminism was, like, alright a long time ago, but now it has gone just too far. Women aren’t oppressed by men anymore, they’re oppressed by feminists and their politically correct allies. They’re practically forcing abortions and contraception on women. Contraception, it’s hideous, as good as murder. All over Britain girls are being denied the chance to have three, eight or even twelve children and spend a whole lifetime in the house. That’s the so-called choice feminists offer!

What’s worse is that the feminists are killing off all the good men. Us girls just want a huge hunk to hold us, provide for us and occasionally slap us around when they come home late from the pub! But the feminists have feminised all the men! Now they’re caring and want to spend time with the children. It’s sickening. I mean what’s wrong with a bit of marital rape now and again? It keeps a marriage healthy. But the PC police will have none of it, probably explains why the divorce rate is up.

Politics, don’t the feminists realise us girls can do without it? I mean, why should we have the vote? It just gets us into more arguments with our man. We should let him choose the Prime Minister. After all we’d much prefer to be cradling our darling children than dealing with the messy affairs of state. Of course the feminists will have none of it, every five years we’re forced to the polling booth. And the feminists talk about choice!!???

Education, it’s just wasted on us girls. The feminists have forced generations of British women to read and write. Don’t they realise it just causes so many worries for us girls? I could do without the stress of reading the papers and having to settle the bill at the shops. Just give me a few memorised Bible passages and a wonderful hubby to do all the maths and I’d be in heaven!

So let’s do away with these feminists, 'cause, let’s face it, they don’t dress like girls. In fact some of them might be lesbians. I’ve never met any, but I’m pretty sure they dictate government policy on most issues. The feminists are just so unbearable, can’t they just get married? Frankly if this carries on it will be the end of Western civilization.

So girls, let’s be our own feminists. Be like me, I’m a feminist because I’m feminine!


© Copyright 2006 Numerous female undergraduates.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JulienP
Black Bloc
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 463
:
Location: Selly Park, Birmingham

Items
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This wouldn't be as a response to an article by a certain redbrick ex-news editor we all know and love would it? Razz Again a very amusing article V!
_________________
Big Brother is watching YOU!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
deadman
Meeting Facilitator
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 31
:
Location: chamberlain hall

Items
PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A Word on Feminism


'down with the Patriarchy!'

Hoo hoo! Shocked

Well, this is refreshing! It’s nice to see someone expressing themselves with satire. For those who don't get it, this is a rewording of an article that appeared on here, which argued against Feminism. Seeing as nobody else has picked this article apart with traditional Radish fervour, looks like I will have to do the honours.

Quote:
Some of us don’t want to murder our babies. We want to be mothers, we want to cradle our darling little ones on our knees. I don’t care if the father is a crack addict and my baby’s missing a spinal cord. I’m a decent woman and I’m quite against slaughtering babies.


Junior

Feminists hate children. Society is no more than an artifical construct to them, so what use are children? Why further a family line, or experience the joy of being a parent, when one is pursuing a high-powered job solely to make a point to other people (and not out of love for what is achieved in it), and there’s a chance the damn thing will turn out to be another man?

Feminists do believe in slaughtering kids. If that’s what the mother wants, as the child is just a part of her body, like a kidney or a bogie. She can have killed, given away, or born. She can raise it, school it, and instruct it. Fair enough! I guess that means the father isn’t involved, eh? Seeing as he has no role to play in any of these important choices.

Oh… wait! I forgot! Should the woman decide to have little Junior, on a whim, every aspect of the father’s life (including his finances!) will be absolutely and completely determined (and probably ruined) by that choice. And rightly so, for he accepted that reality when he had all that sex!

BUT he doesn’t he get a say in anything else? No. He can work that wage-slave job, hand over a paycheck, beg for visitation rights, and go f**k himself, like the worm that he is. It’s almost like Feminists believe men should have as many commitments as possible, whilst women should have all the choices and freedoms, when it comes to children.
It’s almost like… sexism.

That’s Feminism!

Quote:
Contraception, it’s hideous, as good as murder. All over Britain girls are being denied the chance to have three, eight or even twelve children and spend a whole lifetime in the house. That’s the so-called choice feminists offer!


So either you’re a Feminist, or an embittered housebound stay-at-home-mum? What about positive, feminine women who like the idea of having children, but use contraception because they don’t want one now? Where do they figure into your satire?

Quote:
The feminists have feminised all the men! Now they’re caring and want to spend time with the children. It’s sickening. I mean what’s wrong with a bit of marital rape now and again?


Masculinity – the modern epidemic

Ah, the feminised man. Showering women with chocolates and flowers, obeying every command of his domineering wife, giving up his passions and dreams to be in a wage slave job he hates, totally uncomfortable with his sexuality. He is exactly the kind of man that the Feminists love – a man without a pair of balls! Why, he is halfway to being the correct sex!

What kind of person believes that all men (except for a few extremely weak ones) are heaving, brainless rapists? Who have nothing to offer but ‘maritial rape’? That would be a Feminist. Never mind that masculinity is the flipside of femininity, and that women are attracted to it wherever it manifests itself. That masculinity is not ‘rape’, but direction, courage, strength, ambition!

Femininity is beautiful. Just as beautiful, is masculinity. But according to a Feminist, gender and sexuality is just a biological fluke backed up by a 'social construct' dreamed up by an evil "Patriarchy". A social construct which allows men to rule the world.

Wink (cough)

That's an evil "Patriarchy" that allows Feminism to exist in the first place! How all-powerful is this evil Patriarchy, really? Why hasn't it crushed Feminism? Only one answer -the Patriarchy must be staffed by a bunch of feminised men! Very Happy

Quote:
Politics, don’t the feminists realise us girls can do without it? I mean, why should we have the vote? It just gets us into more arguments with our man. We should let him choose the Prime Minister.


Ancient History

Here there is no underlying message, just empty parody. The Suffragettes got the vote years ago. When one attacks Feminism, it is not an attack on the ‘vote for women’. I don’t think any anti-Feminist seriously believes that women deserve to have their voting rights revoked.

You’ll find that the current legal battle of Feminism is to deny the rights of fathers, and reinforce the unfair laws relating to marriage (where husbands have nothing but responsibilities, and wives have nothing but privileges, with none of the attendant responsibilities. See here for details: http://dapook.blogspot.com/2006/08/marriage-and-state.html).

Quote:
Education, it’s just wasted on us girls. The feminists have forced generations of British women to read and write. Don’t they realise it just causes so many worries for us girls? I could do without the stress of reading the papers and having to settle the bill at the shops. Just give me a few memorised Bible passages and a wonderful hubby to do all the maths and I’d be in heaven!


Call me a Utilitarian, but...

What?

That isn’t parody, that’s just being sarcastic for no reason! Smile

Rebecca King never said that Feminists had betrayed women by encouraging literacy. Unless you are making the point that Feminists have done good things, which I believe was already voiced in the original article.

Yes, Feminism has done good things. Women being given access to education is one of those things. But then again, the n*z*s did plenty of good things. When Adolf got into power, the transport system saw massive improvements, and there was a great boost in national identity and employment! Ah, good old Hitler, at least he made the trains run on time!

I use such an extreme example because, strangely, it puts it all into perspective. Do good roads or national renewal excuse the evils done by the n*z*s? No, it does not. And does the vote or education excuse the evils of Feminism? I don’t think it does. It is a disease of our society.

Quote:
So let’s do away with these feminists, 'cause, let’s face it, they don’t dress like girls. In fact some of them might be lesbians. I’ve never met any, but I’m pretty sure they dictate government policy on most issues. The feminists are just so unbearable, can’t they just get married? Frankly if this carries on it will be the end of Western civilization.


Think Of The Cats

Here you appear to incite that most people’s dislike of Feminism is based on a belief that it is an anti-feminine, legally destructive, unbearable ideology that dislikes marriage. All of this is true. But I will go you one further, and say that modern Feminism is based on hate – hatred of men, hatred of society, and hatred of Nature. And I will say that Feminists find such easy unity with intellectuals because they are totally devoid of joy. They refuse to be flesh and blood.

Put me in a room full of Feminists and I’d wear my fingers to stumps trying to escape through the locked door. Jesus, have you ever seen a Feminist at a PARTY? They burst all the balloons, yell at the girls for dancing, turn off the music, and spend the rest of the night sitting in the corner talking to the cat.



And speaking of cats… isn’t it about time we had a charity that rescued all these poor animals from the pioneering Feminists? I lie awake at night worrying about my fluffy friends, held captive by bitter Feminists whose ideas only led to melancholy. But for all you trend-spotters out there… now’s the time to invest in cat food.

Quote:

So girls, let’s be our own feminists. Be like me, I’m a feminist because I’m feminine!


Feminism is against femininity. It does more damage to women than men. Girls, you may have misinterpreted my comments as an attack on your gender. That is not my intention. But let me tell you, feminists hate women more than I do.

Because in the world of a Feminist, no woman is worthy unless she acts and lives like a man. It’s not good enough to be who you are – you have to conform to certain standards. I’m reminded of Radish superstar Rebecca King’s story, where she was ‘shamed’ for saying she might one day have a baby and look after it. The traitor!

As Rebecca pointed out; being a woman is natural and joyful. If you want to have children, if you want to get married, then do it. If you want to have a high-powered career and kick corporate ass, do that. f**k it! Do what you want. Do all of those things. DO not be HELD back by a LIMITING and JOYLESS ideology like Feminism. It’s nothing more than an intellectual attack on Nature.

Cool
_________________
It's a wonder that we still know how to breath.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JulienP
Black Bloc
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 463
:
Location: Selly Park, Birmingham

Items
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not being funny, but where does Feminism say any of the things you've mentionned above? There is no Feminist Manifesto, and even if there was Marxism has taught us that these kind of texts can be interpreted in, used and abused in so many different ways, so relying on it to show what all feminists believe would be flawed. The point I am long-windedly making is that where the f**k have you got your ideas about feminism from? Feminism in my mind is about female liberation, doing exactly what you described, women doing what they want!!!
_________________
Big Brother is watching YOU!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
higuy
Black Bloc
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 301
:

Items
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

seems we have another contentious debate on the radish, dont mind if i get involved!

[quote="deadman]
Feminists hate children. Society is no more than an artifical construct to them, so what use are children? Why further a family line, or experience the joy of being a parent, [/quote]

hoo hoo thats a bit strong! JulienP makes a fair point when when he talks about ideology. An ideology can be twisted and thus interpreted in many different ways. The same process has happened with the Bible, (lets not get into that one). What more in this modern age we have seen the death of ideology. Whereas some people maybe libertarian on social issues they can be very right wings on economic issues. Therefore to prescribe such a rigid set of views to a set up people who class themselves under the term feminism can only be misleading.

Let me be very un-academic and talk about my personal experience... *yawn* but hell we can all relate. We all know at least one feminist, i do history and politics, i think i know a few. None of them hate babies!!!! Most would not think society is an artificial construct. Feminism is, like any other term in discourse, open to various interpretations. You are perfectly entitled to your own, however some of the points you make i believe it is unfair to attribute to women (or men) who call themselves feminist because they believe women should not expect to earn 80% of what a man earns in the same job or no female gradute should expect to earn 15% less then male graduates.

I dont doubt that feminism has in many respects been harmful to this socities sense of masculinity but to attack feminists' i think is misplaced.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steven
Black Bloc
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 406
:
Location: Selly Park

Items
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You learn something new about phpbb's censorship rules everday - apparently the shortened name of the National Socialist party of Germany is out...

Anyway, the feminism and shit - I'm gonna have to join the chorus of voices suggesting that you have a very distorted view of feminism. I believe most of the women I know would call themselves feminists, and I very much doubt they would recognise the portrait of extremist femnism you've painted. And none of them seem to hate men much. They don't seem to hate me, anyway. Although I am a pussy.

To assume all of feminism is encapsulated by its most militant section is like assuming all Muslims are terrorists, because the most dislikeable ones are.

Quote:
Never mind that masculinity is the flipside of femininity, and that women are attracted to it wherever it manifests itself. That masculinity is not ‘rape’, but direction, courage, strength, ambition!


I don't really get the worshipping of masculinity either, but again I think that's probably because I'm a pussy. I tend to associate masculinity with, well, tosspots, frankly. But I think that's because I'm a very hateful person. And a pussy.

More interestingly - and controversially - I may be in the process of changing an opinion! In a previous argument about this very matter I think I went for the ol' 'gender is a social construct' position; but I've been reading a lot of Jung recently, and smackbang in the middle of agreeing with his theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious it was pointed out to me that it suggests a tendency to certain gender roles might be an archetype, and thus would be inherent rather than constructed. So I'm still in two minds about that now. If anyone has any views on the implications of Jung for gender theory (very likely, I know), please post them here, and we can confuse people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
gorky
Black Bloc
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 164
:

Items
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

steven wrote:
If anyone has any views on the implications of Jung for gender theory (very likely, I know), please post them here, and we can confuse people.


Jung's theories are interesting, although I dread to think what he would think of the Radish. A few years ago I read his autobiographical Memories, Dreams and Reflections for a course on psychoanalysis, it's a good read.

As Steven notes he's particularly pertinent for this discussion, his views on women were well recorded:

Quote:

"Deeply concerned to preserve the distinction between the sexes, he could easily write: 'The worst sight...is the woman parading in trousers...I often thought if only they knew how mercilessly ugly they looked.' Women, he complained, plunged into a process called co-education, trying to make the sexes equal instead of emphasising their differences.'They belonged usually to a very decent type of middle class and were not smart at all, but only touched by the...raging hermaphroditosis.'"


Quite amusing to think of the old man fuming about women wearing trousers. We'll leave the allegations of sympathy for the NSDAP out of it.

Anyway the psychoanalytic theories have fallen out of fashion with psychologists as being unscientific. Your chances of being refered to a Jungian analyst by a GP if you have a mental health problem are slim these days. So the mantle of psychoanalytic research falls mainly upon English students, psychoanalysis today is a tool for literary criticism. There are a few other subjects like Cultural Studies and Politics which take an interest as well.

It strikes me that psychoanalysis is more of a philosophy than anything else, although it isn't much studied in Philosophy departments to my knowledge. Everyone knows that Freud is the father of modern Psychology, just as everyone knows Aristotle was one the fathers of Science. Aristotle was wrong about the Sun revolving around the Earth, Freud was wrong about various aspects of the mind. Philosophers and literary types pick over their remains whilst the scientists march on. I'm not sure if the scavenger hunt is wise or foolish. Perhaps we should start a thread?

For the record I rather like women to wear skirts. Call it an ontology of difference or call it sexual desire, I don't mind. So put me down as a Jungian anti-feminist in that respect. Although I'm not joining Deadman's side. Having read his post and been thinking about psychoanalysis two words popped into my head: Mother issues.

The Radish as group therapy? Now there's a scary thought. Nurse Ratched, I want my pills!
_________________
“But you are a thin-blooded lot! Ere you have grown up you are already overgrown and withered. You live like an old radish." - Maxim Gorky, The Man Who Was Afraid, Chapter 10.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JulienP
Black Bloc
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 463
:
Location: Selly Park, Birmingham

Items
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
They don't seem to hate me, anyway. Although I am a pussy.

Awwww Steven, tis alright pussys are cute. Ah shit, that sounds dodgy!

Quote:
I don't really get the worshipping of masculinity either, but again I think that's probably because I'm a pussy. I tend to associate masculinity with, well, tosspots, frankly. But I think that's because I'm a very hateful person. And a pussy.

Ditto, but no tis cos we're pretentious liberal intellectual males, rather than the togledytes that we had to deal with at school.

Quote:
Quite amusing to think of the old man fuming about women wearing trousers. We'll leave the allegations of sympathy for the NSDAP out of it.

Hmmm I'm loath to consider the opinions of someone (Jung) who is so obviously a chauvinist and is using his pretenious theories to reinforce that view. There's nowt wrong with women in trousers, in fact I tend to think sometimes they look sexier that way, which means either: I am gay, or, women can be feminine and sexy in trousers.

Now as for gender being a social construct, I'll go for the wishy-washy historian's answer and say it is a little of both. If we say it is something that is not a social construct, ie nature not nurture, then it must be something genetic. Things which would support this would be the fact other species have similar gender roles but not all do, yet the differences in genes could explain that. If it is not a social construct then gender roles would still be present long after the need for them has passed cos eveolution is slow like that. So for example that men were hunter-gatherers (macho) and the women looked after the offspring would still be present today, and to some extent it partly is, yet not all of it, and evolutionary terms we left the caves very recently, not enough time!

Now if we say it is a social construct then it could be still present in other species, depending on their environment which is the case. Also attitudes in society about gender roles have vastly changed over the past 100 years or so. Yet some of the basics are still the same in many cases, ie women being feminine, men being masculine (steven's pussyness notwithstanding). Eg men straight men would never wear skirts (unless they're scottish lol). If it was a social construct then surely it would be flimsier and have been more eradicated by now. So maybe it is nurture more than nature, but not necessarily a social construct, more an environmental construct dating from our time in the caves and still hanging around.

Sorry it's so long, now pick it to pieces, and please on a level us noobs can understand (I am looking at you steven and gorky).
_________________
Big Brother is watching YOU!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
steven
Black Bloc
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 406
:
Location: Selly Park

Items
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd completely say that psychoanalysis is a philosophy rather than a science, although that obviously doesn't make it any less relevant to how we look at things.

Jules, Jung was a bit of a chauvinist (and was accused of anti-semitism, although I'm a lot less convinced by that), but his theories don't exist purely to put women down: that's just a side-effect that he probably wasn't too upset about. He wrote absolute piles of stuff, and most of it is to do with psychology, culture, religion, etc., and as Gorky's said, Memories, Dreams, Reflections is well worth a read.

As for your own thoughts on it - I'm a little confused: at the end you say it's "nurture more than nature", but then you say it's environmental rather than social, which seems to be the exact opposite.

And if this is group therapy, are any of us getting better?

Personally, I quite like women in trousers, but we must remember that I'm some kind of self-hating feminist, so maybe I don't really like women in trousers. Discuss.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
JulienP
Black Bloc
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 463
:
Location: Selly Park, Birmingham

Items
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As for your own thoughts on it - I'm a little confused: at the end you say it's "nurture more than nature", but then you say it's environmental rather than social, which seems to be the exact opposite.

Right let me clarify, cos I kinda confused myself here as well. I think it is nurture more than nature. Social construct is part of our environment, our society is part of our environment, as opposed to being what are made of, our genes. However I think it is parts of our enviornment other than social constructs that may be partly responsible for gender issues. Eg historical reasons see above post. For me it is too entrenched to be entirely a social construct which I think can change more easily, therefore it must be other parts of our environment other than social contructs. I think you know understand what I am saying, but probably think it does not make sense. You're probably right, I pretty much wrote down what came into my head, it seemed intelligent and intelligible at the time.

Quote:
but his theories don't exist purely to put women down: that's just a side-effect that he probably wasn't too upset about.

Hmmm, I'm sure people said the same about the bible too, but it still did! And no we're not getting any better, it's kind of group reverse-therapy!
_________________
Big Brother is watching YOU!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
naivehottie
Black Bloc
Joined: 01 Apr 2006
Posts: 385
:

Items
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It depends what elements of gender roles.

Things like wearing skirts/trousers are clearly social constructs, but differences in things like personality, areas of intelligence etc. are largely genetic, but more on a scale so on average one task may be easier for females, whereas another may on average be easier for males, but there's a huge overlap.

Some things are back to when people had more children, so women were pregnant for a large part of their lives and so had to stay at home while the male worked, which is also partly why they looked after children. This has both nature and nurture elements as the differences are partly inherited and partly socially past on despite the virtual irrelevence to modern living.

So I'd agree it is both nature and nurture, roughly equally in my opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steven
Black Bloc
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 406
:
Location: Selly Park

Items
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JulienP wrote:
Hmmm, I'm sure people said the same about the bible too, but it still did! And no we're not getting any better, it's kind of group reverse-therapy!


Jung isn't the Bible though (although he probably wished he was) - the Bible actually makes several sexist references about women and calls it God's will. Jung did not write books about women wearing trousers, he wrote books about the mind, and just happened to have been a bit sexist in his views on women's fashion - there's a bit of a difference. He at least took women a bit more seriously than Freud, and you wouldn't say Freud's entire ouevre is just an excuse for opressing women.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
JulienP
Black Bloc
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 463
:
Location: Selly Park, Birmingham

Items
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
He at least took women a bit more seriously than Freud, and you wouldn't say Freud's entire ouevre is just an excuse for opressing women.

Point taken. I suppose the point I was trying to make, was that how valid is someone's research when they let their own personal pre-concieved opinion get in the way. But as you say it has never bothered me with Freud, or what I know of his theories anyway!
_________________
Big Brother is watching YOU!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
     
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Radish Forum Index -> Articles All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
The Radish topic RSS feed 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Igloo Theme Version 1.0 :: Created By: Andrew Charron

FREE FORUM HOSTING by AtFreeForum. Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
FASHION ACCESSORIES - BLING BLING - LADIES WATCHES - KOREAN CHILDREN CLOTHING - ONLINE BARGAIN STORE - FASHION JEWELLERIES