Student: Stanley


GSST 1S Spring, 2020 Paper #1 What does it mean to say that sex, gender, and sexuality are socially constructed? In your response, be sure to explain/define key terms you are using and to integrate meaningfully at least three course readings assigned since the start of the quarter. You are encouraged to include examples or ideas from other course materials, such as lessons or videos, and from your personal experiences, as well. You may include outside materials, but you are not expected to. Papers will be evaluated using the following criteria: Does the paper have a clear thesis sentence? Does the paper include an accurate and sufficient explanation of what it means to say sex, gender, and sexuality are socially constructed? Does the student include definitions of key terms and concepts? Does the student meaningfully incorporate at least three course readings assigned since the start of the quarter? Does the student correctly and effectively make use of course material to make their argument? Is the paper written clearly and coherently? Is the paper free of typographical errors, run-on and incomplete sentences, verb/noun incongruence, and other writing problems? Is the paper no longer than 4 double-spaced pages using a reasonable (11-12 point) font and no smaller than 1” margins? Does the student include in-text citations (Steinem 1978) for works cited? Please submit your paper no later than Saturday, April 25th, at 6pm via the iLearn site for your discussion section. Common Questions about Papers May I use the first person (“I”) voice? Yes, please do! We want to hear your voice. What is meaningful incorporation of a course reading? Meaningful incorporation means using a reading in such a way that reflects your understanding of the content and that advances the argument you are making. As much as possible, use your own words rather than quote directly from the reading. This helps convey your understanding of the material. Be sure to also use those readings that make the most sense for the argument you are making in your paper. There are some readings in the class. Please choose one or more to related to the essay. 4 pages long Thesis: What does it mean to say that sex, gender, and sexuality are socially constructed? Can be used in first person. The requirement is in "Paper 1". Week Three Lesson One The Social Construction of Sex & Gender The first lecture video for this week goes into some detail about how and why scholars in the field of Gender & Sexuality Studies (and many other disciplines, including Sociology, Anthropology, Ethnic Studies, and Philosophy) generally view sex and gender as socially constructed. Social constructs are probably useful in human societies because they allow people to makes sense of the world through categories that have meanings. Many parts of social life are constructed—money, borders, government/the state, and more! To say something is socially constructed does not mean that it is fake or insignificant; social constructs are incredibly real and can have serious implications for individuals, groups, and entire societies. Social constructs share a few core features, and thinking about them can help us understand sex and gender as social constructs better. Social constructs are constituted by social relations (and by definition can only exist within social relations), such if the social relations were different, it would be possible for the specific social constructions not to exist at all, or to exist in a very different way. Social constructs generally also develop over time—most have long historic roots—and they can change over time as social relations within a society change. That is good news, because it means we can change them! Many of you in this course are likely familiar with two or more cultures, and you may even see how sex and gender are socially constructed differently across those cultures. Just one simple example: in Germany, where my family lives, women regularly wear their hair very short (well above the ear). When I am in Germany, I never have issues with people categorizing me as male or as a man—people see my short hair and they keep looking for other social cues of my sex and gender, such physique, clothing, accessories, etc., before addressing me as Fraulein (Ms.) or Herr (Mr.). In the United States, women rarely wear their hair very short, and those who do are often assumed to be lesbian or otherwise gender-non-normative. I routinely have people (who are presumably women, since they’re in a room marked as designated for women) inform me that I have walked into to the “wrong” gender bathroom, or just do a double-take and then flee (this especially happens to me in bathrooms designated for women on the UCR campus!). I am called “Sir,” by wait staff and others. This doesn’t happen every day, but a good amount—and far, far more than it happens than when I am home in Germany. That’s because my appearance falls outside of the expected gender expression of women in the US and closer to the expected gender expression of men, whereas my appearance falls within the expected gender expression of women in Germany. These are differences in how gender is socially constructed in these two societies. (I know my hair may not look that short on my videos lately, but like many of us, I haven’t gotten a haircut in ages because of the pandemic, and I am struggling with whether to trust my wife to do it. ). I have no doubt that you can come up with examples from your own lives of similar examples. Another key point to make about social constructionist theories is that they are not all the same. There are many different theorists writing and working in this area, and they often have somewhat different ideas. Some focus on the micro, or interactional, level of analysis, so how we create and recreate constructs through our everyday interactions with other people. Others focus more on how macro, or larger-scale institutions, like the state and the economy, (re)create social constructs and use those constructs to guide how they function. Sex and gender difference are constructed and maintained at three levels: 1) at the individual level of social learning; 2) at the interactional level of social relations in everyday life (e.g., interactions with friends, family, religious leaders, teams, etc.); and 3) at the level of structural, organizational and institutional forces that constrain and shape action (adapted from Aulette and Wintner, 2015). Importantly, social constructions of sex and gender can vary across or even within these three levels. For example, you may be a player on an athletic team that has a particular way of thinking about, enacting, and embodying sex and gender, while being part of a student club that has a somewhat different way of thinking about, enacting, and embodying sex and gender. One of the two may have more rigid norms around sex and gender, the other more flexible norms. You may even find some groups that challenge dominant constructions of sex and gender and which offer very different ways of thinking about the possibilities of these categories. As we move through the quarter, we will be talking both about more social constructs (such as masculinity and femininity), and about how our social construction of sex, gender, sexuality—often in conjunction with other socially constructed structures of inequality like race—shape individual, group, and societal experiences. Keep an eye for opportunities to think about sex and gender as socially constructed. In regards to sex and gender, a key idea for this week (and to keep with us for the rest of the quarter) is that the social constructionist perspective stands in opposition to biological determinism and gender essentialism. Biologically deterministic perspectives hold that a person’s sex characteristics determine their gender identity and expression. Gender essentialism further explains people’s behaviors and identities as being an outcome of their sex/gender category. For instance, if you’ve ever heard someone say girls and women are more emotional or have a harder time controlling their emotions than boys and men, that would be a biologically deterministic and gender essentialist statement: the statement claims that someone’s behavior is the outcome of their gender, and that all (or at least most) people in that gender category will exhibit this behavior. Self-Assessment (not to be submitted, just for your own reflection; best completed after completing the reading) 1. Compare two contexts in your life in which you encounter different (whether just a little bit or very different is fine!) social constructions of sex and gender. 2. Practice thinking about and analyzing social constructs. Beauty is socially constructed. Explain how, in your own words. 3. How does the existence of gender diverse people challenge biological determinism? 1 Week Two Lesson Two The Truth about Truth (& Anthony) Becoming grounded in the field of Gender & Sexuality Studies benefits greatly from learning a bit about the history of women and sexual minorities in the United States. While most students are aware that women in the US did not have the right to vote until 1920, fewer students are familiar with many of the other limitations placed on women, with how women (and allies) have organized to resist these limitations, and what the changing experiences of sexual minorities have been across US history. As we move through the quarter together, we will be reading some historical documents that help illuminate the lived experiences of women and sexual minorities, as well as their efforts at resistance. In many cases, these documents serve the dual function of showing concepts we are talking about in class in action in real life. Last week, we talked about the First Wave of feminist activism in the United States, which originated in the early 1800s and which focused on women’s right to vote. It is highly likely that you have heard the name Sojourner Truth before, and you may have read her famous “Ain’t I A Woman?” speech. Maybe you noticed that the speech we read for class this week doesn’t include the phrase, “Ain’t I a woman?” That’s because Truth’s speech at the 1851 Ohio Women’s Rights Convention was not recorded. The most accurate record of her speech is believed to be that documented by her good friend Reverend Marius Robinson, who was present when she gave the speech and who took notes on it; he published his transcript of her speech just a month after she gave it. More than a decade later, white feminist and abolitionist Frances Grange published “Ain’t I A Woman,” changing the words significantly and writing the speech as if it had been spoken by a woman with the stereotypical accent of a southern Black slave. In fact, Sojourner Truth was Afro-Dutch; her first language was Dutch, and she was born and raised in New York state. She didn’t start learning English until she was at least 11 years old, and spoke English with a heavy Dutch accent, not a southern one (she never lived in the American South). Please read, look at the images, and listen to the videos about the life of Sojourner Truth available through the National Women’s History Museum As you are watching/reading/listening, pay attention to what is new to you about Sojourner Truth: Did you know that the “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech was made up by someone else? What else about her life is new or surprising to you? Why do you think the largely fabricated “Ain’t I A Woman?” speech resonated so much with American feminists across generations? This content is protected and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed without the express permission of the author. © 2020 Katja M. Guenther, University of California, Riverside 2 (Last year, during the GSST 1S lecture, a student commented that Truth also removed her shirt during her 1851 speech, which I found to be a surprising claim; I subsequently researched this and learned it was a myth propagated by trans activist Laverne Cox (and maybe others). For a woman to remove her clothing in public—let alone at a suffragist meeting—during this era would have been widely documented and discussed; there is no historical evidence to even hint that this ever happened. Why do you think it would matter if it did or did not happen?). Susan B. Anthony is probably another familiar name to you. Born in Massachusetts in 1820, and spending most of her life as a resident of New York, Anthony was a white woman who opposed slavery and advocated for women’s rights. She became involved in the abolition movement as a teenager, was a member of the Underground Railroad network that helped Black slaves escape the American South to Canada, and became one of the most visible leaders of the suffrage movement. She was a rousing speaker, and she supported herself entirely by giving paid lectures on issues like abolition, temperance,1 and suffrage. Anthony became best friends with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, another white woman leader of the suffrage movement; Stanton, who lived with her husband and their seven children, dedicated a bedroom in her home to Anthony, and biographers of both women note that they spent more time with each other than with any other human being in their lifetimes. (There is sometimes also innuendo that Anthony and Stanton were lovers—I am not aware of concrete evidence to support this, although there is compelling historical evidence that Anthony was a lesbian who had sexual/romantic relationships with at least two other women in the suffrage movement. Most who have studied her life see Anthony as “married” to her work rather to relationships. See Lillian Faderman’s book To Believe in Women: What Lesbians Did for America for a compelling account of the many contributions of lesbian women to social progress in 19th and early 20th century America). While Anthony was excited to be alive when slavery ended, she died fourteen years before American women were granted the right to vote. Stanton was a controversial figure. She was unusually outspoken as a woman for her era, she never married or had children (as women were expected to do), and she appeared regularly in public, advocating for the rights of Blacks and women. She 1 The temperance movement sought to restrict/ban the production and sale of alcohol in the US in the mid-18th and early-19th centuries. Temperance was seen as a women’s issue both because at that time women were understood to be the moral guardians of their husbands and children and because women were so often victimized by men who drank. If they were married to a man with a drinking problem, women could not seek protection from physical abuse, stop men from gambling away the family’s funds, nor seek divorce with any ease. If they did manage to get their husband to initiate divorce, they were almost guaranteed to lose custody of their children and to lose their income. Alcoholism was also a leading contributor to men abandoning their wives and/or having extra-marital affairs that resulted in the birth of out-of-wedlock children. Drinking alcohol was thus seen as a serious social issue and one that had unique effects for women. Thanks in large part to the organizing of women temperance activists, the production and sale of alcohol was banned in the US in the period known as the Prohibition from 1920 until 1933. This content is protected and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed without the express permission of the author. © 2020 Katja M. Guenther, University of California, Riverside 3 routinely received death threats, and often traveled with two armed guards. In 1850, Anthony was arrested for casting a false ballot as she voted in the November election, seventy years before women won the right to vote. Reading #17 documents her speech to the judge. In 2019, leaders in New York announced that they would be unveiling a statue of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton in New York City’s Central Park. The statue would be only the 6th statute in New York City to feature women, whereas over 150 public statues in New York City feature men; there are 23 statues featuring men in Central Park, and this will be the first statue in the park to feature women. There was an immediate outcry that the statue failed to represent the diversity of the suffrage movement, and the statue was redesigned to include Sojourner Truth (Truth was a frequent visitor to Stanton’s home, as was Anthony, but it’s unknown if Truth and Anthony ever knew each other). You can see a picture of the planned statue (which I believe will be in bronze) here: Self- Assessment (not to be submitted, just for your own reflection; best completed after completing the reading) 1. Why in her argument with Judge Hunt does Susan B. Anthony state that she cannot get a trial by a jury of her peers (see top of second column, page 126)? 2. What do Sojourner Truth and Susan B. Anthony seem to have in common? What about their life experiences and beliefs seem to have been different? 3. How is the lack of statues of women in New York City and in Central Park evidence of patriarchy? What elements of patriarchal structure that Johnson discusses are evident in this underrepresentation? 4. What arguments would you make in favor of including Sojourner Truth in the final statue design? This content is protected and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed without the express permission of the author. © 2020 Katja M. Guenther, University of California, Riverside Week Four Lesson One Intersectionality A core concept from the field of Gender & Sexuality Studies is that of intersectionality. As discussed in some of this week’s lecture videos, intersectionality refers to perspectives that integrate gender and other systems of inequality. Feminist women of color in the United States, as well as white women who were poor and/or lesbian, were among the first to articulate intersectional perspectives, writing about their experiences as oppressed in society because of their gender, their race, and/or their class. Reflecting back on Sojourner Truth’s statement of 1851 shows us that intersectional thinking is hardly new. During the Second Wave Women’s Movement, lesbian women, disabled women, Black women, Chicanx women, Asian American women, and women who were poor or working class began integrating their identities and experiences as members of these social categories with feminism. The Combahee River Collective’s Statement, Audre Lorde’s work on multiple oppressions, and Gloria Anzaldúa’s writings on mestiza consciousness that we are reading for this week are but some examples of a rich terrain of intersectional writing from the Second Wave. These writings illuminated how the experiences of many individuals and groups could not be analyzed or understood accurately if only looking at them as grounded in a single social structure (like gender); instead, multiple structures (like gender, race, and class) needed to be considered. Some of these writers—starting especially with white working class and poor women—also began articulating the idea of a feminist standpoint. Drawing on the work of Karl Marx (remember him? The German social theorist who brought us the social theories that undergird socialism and communism?), who argued that members of the working class see the world from a different perspective than people in power (who he called the bourgeoisie), feminist standpoint theorists began asserting that women see the world and develop knowledge from a different starting point than their oppressors, men. Anzaldúa’s idea of mestiza consciousness also articulates a standpoint theory in which the mestiza has a particular vantage point from which to see gender relations, tensions of race, ethnicity, and nationality, and more. By the 1980s, Black women scholars were also articulating the idea of a Black feminist standpoint. Intersectionality was first articulated as a perspective in the early 1990s, when two Black women scholars in two different fields of study began talking about the interconnections between systems of structural oppression as a lens or prism through which to understand the social world and generate new knowledge. These women— UCLA Law Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw and University of Maryland Sociology Professor Patricia Hill Collins—are widely seen as the originators of intersectional feminist analysis. Crenshaw and Collins drew on both their experiences as Black women, and their knowledge (from research and observation) of Black women’s lives to introduce a new vocabulary that recognizes that structures of domination and oppression in society—whether based on gender, race, class, sexuality, nationality, dis/ability—are This content is protected and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed without the express permission of the author. © 2020 Katja M. Guenther, University of California, Riverside interlocking and support one another. Crenshaw referred to this as “intersectionality;” Collins initially used the language of a “matrix of domination.” Today, the overwhelming majority of feminist scholarship is intersectional. Research and theorizing about gendered structures, lives, and identities considers how gender intersects with other axes of oppression and identity to shape individual and group experiences. Feminist scholars take as a starting point that, “Expectations for what constitutes femininity and masculinity, along with the options available to different women and men are deeply affected by sexism, poverty, racism, homophobia, cisheterosexism, and other cultural constraints and expectations. To understand people’s identities and opportunities, we need to understand the privilege or oppression that they experience, the historical times and circumstances in which they are currently living, the structural arrangements that surround their lives, and the possibilities for empowerment that they encounter or create” (Disch 2009: 32). Intersectional perspectives recognize that at some moments—whether in the experiences of an individual or of an entire category of people—one particular axis of oppression may be most salient. In much of her activism since 2010, Prof. Crenshaw, for example, has been critical of the #BlackLivesMatter movement for failing to acknowledge or mobilize around Black women who were killed by police officers. Here, Crenshaw notes that although these women share the same racial category as men who have been killed by police officers, their gender renders them invisible and outside of the framework of who people think of when they imagine “victims” of police violence. But in the context of their interactions with police, we can assume that their race was particularly salient. Prof. Crenshaw was raised by parents who were active in the Civil Rights Movements. In this movement, women were sidelined by male leaders, often given diminished roles and credit for their work, and the concerns of Black women were never (and in many ways have yet to be) integrated into the politics of civil rights. Thus, in the context of the internal organization of the Civil Rights Movement, gender is particularly important for understanding the experiences of Black women. When Black women engaged with the Second Wave Feminist Movement, they often found their perspectives as Black women were sidelined. For instance, while white women were significantly focused on increasing the social acceptance of women working outside of the home, many Black women did not see working outside of the home (which they had been doing for generations) as a pathway to emancipation. In this context, then, their race was often very salient. Intersectionality also drives our attention towards how structures of inequality work together. When we look at particular social institutions, we can see intersectional processes at work that help maintain existing structures of power and domination. For example, the system of Black slavery in the United States was a system of racial oppression (white people were allowed, by law, to treat and trade Black people as property), a system of class oppression (white capitalists exploited the unpaid labor of Black slaves for their own profit), and a system of gender oppression (Black women were denied the right to control their own bodies or reproduction, and Black men were This content is protected and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed without the express permission of the author. © 2020 Katja M. Guenther, University of California, Riverside prevented from protecting their families in ways considered normal and appropriate for men; both Black men and women had little or no choice over their family formation or the conditions of their labor). Slavery thus was a system of racial-class-gender oppression—and the racial and gender logics worked to prop up and justify the gender oppression, the gender and class logics worked to prop up the racial oppression, and the racial and gender logics worked to prop up the class oppression. Intersectional perspectives are now employed in understanding the experiences and identities of many different groups, including those of dominant groups, such as whites and men. In fact, scholarship on masculinities and on whiteness routinely uses an intersectional lens. Many of our readings in this course will employ intersectional perspectives, including (by way of some examples) work that examines the experiences of Latinx immigrants negotiating US immigration law, of low-income trans people of color, of Latinx sex workers in a poor country, of Native American women activists, and more. As we keep reading in the class, keep a keen eye out for moments of intersectional analysis. Ask yourself what would be lost in those moments if we only considered one dimension of structural oppression. 1. Identify your gender, race, class , and sexuality (using whatever terms feel comfortable to you). Then make two columns, one in which you list a privilege associated with your identities along each of these axes and one in which you list a penalty. Consult with McIntosh (#9) if needed. 2. When you are done with #1, identify at least one penalty and one privilege your experience that can be explained better by thinking about your race, class, gender, and/or sexuality together than thinking about them in isolation (it’s okay to focus on an intersection of just two, but if you can think about an intersection of three or more, that’s even better!) 3. Develop an intersectional hypothesis about the current COVID crisis. This content is protected and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed without the express permission of the author. © 2020 Katja M. Guenther, University of California, Riverside GSST 1 Week Two Lesson One Patriarchy You’ve probably noticed by now that our major concept this week is patriarchy. In the Johnson reading and the YouTube lecture, you are introduced to what patriarchy is and how it operates as a social system. Historically, the term “patriarchy” referred to social systems in which the father or the oldest man in a kinship group held power over the family or tribe. In Greek, patriarchy literally means “rule of the father;” only in the mid-twentieth century did the word take on the broader meaning of an institutionalized pattern of men’s dominance in society. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, which means that inheritance follows men’s ancestry and that usually only men can inherit (this continues to be true in many parts of the world; while in the US it is no longer legally true, in cultural practice, men tend continue to hold power in many families and many of our marriage rituals—such as women give up their own names and taking that of their husband, or a father “giving away” a daughter by walking her to a marriage ceremony—are a relic of when women were men’s property). The origins of patriarchy have been subject to historical scholarship, and there are multiple (and generally contradictory) explanations of when and how patriarchy developed. Some archeologists have found evidence that male hierarchies emerged when eastern Europeans (Ukrainians) invaded southern and central Europe as early as 7000 BC. Some historians trace the roots to several millennia later (4000 BC) when the concept of fatherhood took root. Another theory on the development of patriarchy, advanced by feminist historian Gerda Lerner, is that patriarchy developed between 3000 and 600 BC in the Middle East when tribes began trading women as a way to build bonds of loyalty across groups of people. This practice had social benefits for increasing a sense of social solidarity across groups of people and reducing the likelihood of warfare, but it also established the idea that women could be traded away without their consent, and that men had rights to self-determination that women do not have—the seed of patriarchal ideologies that are still with us today. Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels assert that patriarchy developed in tandem with the rise of private property (particularly as an outcome of the domestication of animals): Marx and Engels argued that once people had private property such as a herd of animals, they needed a way to pass that property on across generations, but could not do so unless men controlled women’s reproduction; otherwise, how would you know whose kid was whose? So women were forced into monogamy. In The Origins of Patriarchy (1884), Engels described the development of patriarchy in terms many Second Wave and contemporary feminists would echo: A wife was to be ruled by her husband, “reduced to servitude,” and “the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.” The creation of patriarchy, Engels concluded, constituted “the world historical defeat of the female sex.” This content is protected and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed without the express permission of the author. © 2020 Katja M. Guenther, University of California, Riverside No “initiating event” has been identified for patriarchy; that is, historians have not found conclusive evidence that something specific happened (like an environmental or demographic change) to push humans in this direction. The Second Wave Feminist Movement brought new attention to the idea of patriarchy, moving it from a technical term used by scholars to a more widely used term with which many Americans became familiar. Fighting patriarchy became an organizing goal of the Second Wave, which found evidence of patriarchy in virtually all major social institutions: family, religion, economy, politics, education, sports, arts and culture. Through consciousness raising (see last week’s lessons), the Second Wave helped women identify patterns of patriarchy in their own lives. Consciousness raising also worked to help women identify and stop their own internalized sexism, a type of internalized oppression through which girls and women internalize (or take on, accept, or believe) sexist ideologies and start enacting sexism and misogyny on themselves and other women and girls. Read about some examples of her own internalized sexism that one young woman notices here: One of the goals of feminism has been to support people in unlearning patriarchy. That is, starting with the Second Wave feminist movement, feminism has worked to help all people rethink their own systems of knowledge and belief to identify, problematize, and ideally ultimately purge patriarchal ideologies. This is no easy feat, and undoing patriarchy can be a lifelong project. Read this blog post at Everyday Feminism to get some ideas about how to start unlearning patriarchy. In this recent column in UC Berkeley’s student newspaper, a fellow UC student discusses her experience trying to unlearn patriarchy: As the course progresses and we delve more into different expressions of gender inequality, try to keep patriarchy in mind. Think about what the rules and expectations are for girls and boys, women and men, and how they differ and what the consequences of those differences are. As you contemplate patriarchy, also note how patriarchy is linked to homophobia: same-sex desire is problematic precisely because it violates patriarchal expectations of sexual relations in which a man dominates a woman and in which men’s pleasure/desire is most important. Further, there is no room in patriarchy for people who don’t fit clearly into one of the two gender categories on which patriarchy relies, man or woman—a topic we will talk about more in Weeks Three, Four, and beyond. In fact, some scholars of gender inequality have now replaced using the term patriarchy with either the term heteropatriarchy or even cisheteropatriarchy, in large part to emphasize how powerholders are cisgender, heterosexual men who, as a group, dominate cisgender women and sexual minorities (including gays and lesbians, trans, intersexual, and non-binary persons) as a group. This content is protected and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed without the express permission of the author. © 2020 Katja M. Guenther, University of California, Riverside Self- Assessment (not to be submitted, just for your own reflection; best completed after reading Johnson #2 and completing the first of the videos for Week Two) 1. Write your own definition of patriarchy, using your own words. 2. What has patriarchy meant in your own life? Identify 2-3 ways in which patriarchy has shaped your opportunities, the expectations others have for you or that you have for yourself, and/or your beliefs. 3. Commit to trying to unlearn one patriarchal practice you engage in for a month. This could be something like changing something you say (such as committing to no longer use the term “you guys”), turning off any TV show that centers on violence against women and girls (when I tried doing this, I learned I had to give up the entire genre of detective/crime shows!), or letting go of a patriarchal belief you have about yourself or others (such as fatphobia). Stick to it and report back on Piazza how you are doing with your challenge. This content is protected and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed without the express permission of the author. © 2020 Katja M. Guenther, University of California, Riverside

Budget: $25.00

Due on: April 24, 2020 00:00

Posted: 12 months ago.

Answers (0)