I come from a long line of witches. My mother had an uncanny knack for knowing exactly what I was planning to do. I remember the time she was actually seated waiting at the bar when I walked in nonchalantly with my new beau. As far as I was concerned she thought I was “studying with a friend.” I swear that there was no way she could have known. I lost several hundred “cool” points as a result of that encounter. Said charmer wasn’t nearly as interested in an eighteen-year old high school student as he had been in a twenty-something waitress.

The Family Legacy
My grandmother was positively scary. She knew EVERYTHING. None of her grandchildren (thirteen of us) dared to cross her. She once sent me on an errand to purchase some bread. With the penny change I bought myself some candy. Unbelievably, she was outside the store when I walked out clutching the bread and munching on the forbidden fruit. She could also whistle like a thing possessed. Her (black, of course) dog would wander to the other side of town and she’d bring him back with a whistle that could pierce eardrums. My brother has, on occasion, transformed from a successful businessman into a raving demon (and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with testing out the new beer varieties for his bar and restaurant). Finally, my sister has always had the uncanny ability to self-diagnose (correctly) ailments that afflict her–no matter how obscure or unlikely they are.

The Next Generation
When I became a mom myself I found I had similar powers. These days, I drive my nine-year old mad when I walk in just as she’s logging onto Webkinz.com. Even worse (for her) is that I know after the fact that she’s been on the Web site (she hasn’t figured out the “History” on the browser, yet). My husband can’t believe that I always call him at the very moment he decides to pack up work for the day and head out on a bike ride, a rock climbing jaunt or to the bar. To be honest, I’m not quite sure how I do that myself (but I’d never tell him that). And my boss never ceases to be amazed by the apparently magical talent I have of nearly always getting my way (it is NOT nagging).

The Final Frontier
Despite my witchy powers, I didn’t quite have what it takes to be the witch of my dreams. I aspired to cause chaos in the lives of innocent victims, but it just didn’t happen. All that changed after an Internet search and a little magic. I thought it only fair that I share my inspirational story.

The video above says it all

About the author
Witch Hazel runs her own business, Hex for Checks, from her home in Reno, NV and is available for personal consultations on all aspects of skullduggery, iniquity, and witchcraft. She is one hundred and fifty years old.

The Charter of the United Nations is based on the principles of the dignity and equality inherent in all human beings. On January 4, 1969, the United Nations “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” entered into force. The charter defines “racial discrimination” as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”

Racial Discrimination Ruled Unconstitutional
The 1969 UN Charter would seem to be a step forward from the 1951 ruling in “Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas” where the Court found “no willful, intentional or substantial discrimination” in Topeka’s segregated schools. Appeals followed and it was only in 1954 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, finally, that segregation was unconstitutional. The story of this landmark ruling began when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) launched an attack against the 1896 ruling that “separate but equal” is constitutional. In its systematic assault on this doctrine the NAACP cited many examples of how segregation is detrimental, including the 1940’s “doll test”.

The Effects of Segregation on Black Children
During the 1940’s Kenneth B. Clark and his wife, Mamie P. conducted a series of tests investigating the effects of segregation on black children. The results of the “doll test” were published in a paper for the 1950 White House Mid-Century Conference on Children and Youth. In the doll test, black children between the ages of three and seven were shown baby dolls identical in every way apart from skin color. They are asked to identify the race of each doll and to indicate which doll they preferred. The majority of black children selected the white doll and attributed more positive characteristics to the white doll. This, and other evidence, induced the Clarks to conclude that, “prejudice, discrimination, and segregation” caused black children to develop a sense of inferiority and self-hatred.

Racial Discrimination in the 21st Century
That racial discrimination still exists is not in question. Whether we like it or not, we are prejudiced. This is highlighted by the Implicit Association Tests discussed in a previous column. Sad but true. However, have we at least encouraged a sense of equality and self-love in individuals of a given race? Apparently not. Kiri Davis, a 17-year old high school student repeated the Clark tests recently on a group of 21 young black children in New York. The results? Fifteen of the children preferred the white doll and attributed more positive characteristics to the white doll. It is disturbing to watch the video and see a young black girl indicate that she prefers the white doll, the white doll is nicer, the black doll is bad–and then see her consternation when Kiri asks, “And which doll is most like you”? It seems the seeds of racial discrimination are planted early.

I’m not planning to offer some cute explanation relating to EQ and SQ quotients. Take the EQ SQ tests, by all means, but they won’t tell you anything about racial discrimination. Discrimination on the grounds of skin color is illogical and unfeeling. Skin color tells you nothing about a person’s abilities or beliefs. Nevertheless, the systemizer in me wonders what the results would be with a group of white children.

I’m not sure I would like the answer.

Sources:
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland
• Brown v. Board Exhibition, The Library of Congress, 2004
• Introduction to the Court Opinion on the Plessy v. Ferguson Case. 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
• The Doll Test, Komo-TV, 2006

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

Today, I happened upon “Gender Equality Gobbledygook” by Janice Shaw Crouse. She was writing about the Children’s Fund (UNICEF) report, “The State of the World’s Children 2007″. Crouse is a recognised authority on domestic issues, the United Nations, cultural and women’s concerns. As I read the piece I could almost see her rolling her eyes and shaking her head. I was compelled to find the UNICEF report and read it for myself. I mean, the well-being of our children is a serious issue. What could have caused Ms. Crouse to be so derisory?

Women and Children: The Double Dividend of Gender Equality
The first thing that struck me was the subtitle of the report, “Women and Children. The Double Dividend of Gender Equality.” The five chapter titles continued in a similar vein:
* A call for equality
* Equality in the household
* Equality in employment
* Equality in politics and government
* Reaping the double dividend of gender equality

Politics and Prejudice: The Double Whammy of a Secret Agenda
While the stated purpose of the UNICEF report is to highlight the plight of the world’s children, the actual agenda seems to be about reinforcing clichéd feminist beliefs concerning the unequal treatment of men and women in just about every facet of life. The focus is shifted again and again from the welfare of children to issues around gender equality. Maybe there is a connection between gender discrimination and the well-being of our children, but surely it isn’t the only factor?

Fruitless and Futile: The Double Trouble of a Misleading Report
I have not read the entire UNICEF report. I don’t feel inspired to do so. I feel cheated and guilty. I care about the world’s children and unwarranted gender discrimination, but the ambiguity apparent in the purpose of the report has left me unwilling to invest the time required to read it. It has also left me suspicious of future UNICEF reports (despite the fact that the report carries a disclaimer stating, “Commentaries represent the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect UNICEF positions”).

The report reminds me of one of those full-page “advertorials” you see in newspapers. The ones that appear to be balanced and informative articles but are actually designed to promote a particular product or service. The UNICEF report is ostensibly about the state of the world’s children but actually says more about gender equality than children, per se. However, legally, advertorials must state their true agenda.

Shouldn’t the same be true for a report like this?

Sources:
• Gender Equality Gobbledygook, by Janice Shaw Crouse, 2007, Townhall.com
• The State of the World’s Children, 2007, UNICEF

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

I believe very firmly that women should be paid and rewarded in exactly the same way as men for equal jobs. However, I do not believe that all men and all women are similarly equipped (physically or mentally) to be able to perform tasks with the same degree of proficiency. To say that women and men should have equal representation in all careers seems ridiculous to me. It goes against centuries of practical experience, modern scientific research, and common sense.

Gender Discrimination in Academia
A National Academies report issued on Sept. 18, 2006 states that women are discriminated against in academia. Male science and engineering PhD’s hold four times more faculty positions than female science and engineering PhD’s. That is, only one in four faculty positions are held by women. The report also notes that women tend to be promoted more slowly and receive fewer honors. A clear case of discrimination, apparently.

Gender Differences in Science and Technology
The report also claims that, “Studies have not found any significant biological differences between men and women in performing science and mathematics that can account for the lower representation of women in academic faculty and leadership positions in [science and technology] fields”. Hmmm. While I agree that the biological differences between men and women probably don’t affect their science and math performance, what about their aptitudes, motivations, and simple preference? In short; what about their empathizing and systemizing tendencies?

Natural Selection in Career Choice
It seems reasonable to suppose that men and women with “systemizing” tendencies have more desire to enter, and innate skills to succeed in, the fields of science and technology. Prof. Simon Baron-Cohen’s studies indicate that 53% of men have systemizing brains compared to 17% of women. This means that we could expect one out of every four systemizing (vis-à-vis science and technology) jobs to be filled by a woman. It looks as if academia has got it right–but there’s no unfair gender discrimination. That women are promoted more slowly and receive fewer honors is no surprise. More women than men choose to take time out for family and children over careers. Like it or not, this IS going to affect career prospects for women.

Unconscious Prejudice in the Workplace
The truth is that we all have unconscious biases for or against whole groups of people (men, women, Afro-Americans, Jews, gays) that manifest themselves in the way we treat individuals. You can measure your own biases using the Implicit Association Test discussed in last week’s column. We should all be wary of prejudice (in the sence of preconceived judgment) against individuals, but this does not mean that we should fill job vacancies with equal quotas of men and women regardless of their underlying talents. Call me prejudiced, but I want the most qualified (education and aptitude) team of scientists and engineers to design and build, for example, my child’s car seat so that it is as safe as it possibly could be. I don’t care if the team comprises men or women, but I definitely want four systemizers. If that means 3 men and one woman, so be it.

But I want an empathizer to choose the upholstery.

Sources:
• Broad National Effort Urgently Needed To Maximize Potential of Women Scientists and Engineers in Academia, The National Academies News

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

Apparently, I do not associate “male” with “career” any more (or less) than I associate “female” with “career”. Neither do I have an automatic preference for white people over black people. I do, however, have a slight automatic preference for young people compared to old people, and straight people compared to gay people.

The Implicit Association Test
Project Implicit is a virtual laboratory comprising a network of facilities and scientists at Harvard University, the University of Washington, and the University of Virginia. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures unconscious bias in our behavior. Data from the IAT reveals that most people associate family with females, careers with males, liberal arts with females, and science with males. It seems also that Americans (including ethnic minorities) prefer whites to blacks, young people to old people, and thin people to fat people.

Unconscious Bias and Career Progression
Modern morals and legislation demand that we treat everyone equally in our personal and working lives. Most employers would argue that they never discriminate against people because of their “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin”-the basis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Indeed, it is likely that when we make conscious, considered decisions we live up to these high ideals. But what about knee-jerk reactions, snap judgments, and our unconscious responses?

Some Job Applicants are More Equal than Others
When we interview a middle-aged, overweight, black woman, does our unconscious mind compare her unfavorably with the young, fit, white man applying for the same job? Do we react differently, perhaps? Keeping a little more distance, failing to maintain eye contact, and making the hand-shake shorter. All these combined could make a job candidate feel ill at ease for no reason that he or she could put his or her finger on. This discomfort is likely to result in a less than spectacular performance and the employer’s decision to hire the more confident, enthusiastic, and prepared applicant. No discrimination there. Really?

Biased from Birth
The ongoing research around unconscious bias seems to provide conclusive evidence that we all judge and discriminate unconsciously in ways we would vehemently deny. After reading the literature my own results surprised me. I grew up in a small Welsh town. There were two black students among one thousand in the high school I attended. None of my friends, relatives, and contemporaries openly discriminated against black people; but there was an unconscious sigh of relief among the older generation when my friend split with the African guy she dated for a number of years. How could this culture have failed to give me some unconscious bias, even if I choose not to live by those standards in my conscious life?

Systemizing Versus Empathizing Bias
Maybe it is because I am first and foremost a systemizer. When I last took the EQ SQ tests I scored 111 (SQ) and 65 (EQ). I approached the Project Implicit demonstration tests as a “system” and attempted (successfully, it seems) to dissociate the two concepts (for example, Gay or Good, and Straight or Bad) when categorizing a third group of words (for example, joyful, happy, nasty, horrible) as either “Gay” or “Good” or “Straight” or “Bad”. It sounds complex, but it isn’t. It made me wonder if empathizers find it harder to overcome unconscious bias than systemizers.

That said, my systemizing tendencies failed me completely on one test. The results show that I have an automatic preference for Martha Stewart compared to Oprah Winfrey. Given that we know I don’t exhibit race preferences, does this mean I prefer convicted felons to philanthropists?

I’m confused.

Sources:
• Project Implicit
• Implicit Association Test, Demonstration and Research, Harvard University

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

An online survey on childcare revealed that more than 90% respondents would employ a female nanny to care for their children. Only 54% respondents would employ a male nanny. Without delving deeply into the demographics of the quiz-takers, the results were nonetheless interesting. In addition, the questions asked were, perhaps, as telling as the responses.

The Intelligence on Male Nannies
The survey explores male versus female attitudes towards childcare and maternity leave. The reasons given for NOT employing a male nanny varied from “they’re too careless,” through “typically, males are emotionless,” to “sex offender sites…majority [of offenders] are men,” and “[men] could not multi-task.” Those that approved of male nannies cited that men are “calm under pressure,” along with “the ability to care is not dependent on gender,” and (loved this one) “the ones who choose to do it are very good at it, otherwise they would choose to do something else.”

The Intelligence on Female Nannies
The responses pertaining to female nannies praised women as patient with children, terrific, having a natural connection, being more maternal, having excellent intuition, etc. Even though there was a small percentage of respondents who stated they would not employ a female nanny, there were NO negative responses about female nannies.

Female Brain Bias in Setting the Survey
As I pondered the results of the survey I noticed a glaring omission in the questions. Clearly, the survey-setter was trying to set unbiased, balanced questions; with any choices relating to men countered by a the same choices relating to women. However, one question asked whether women should be entitled to maternity leave. Four percent of respondents believed that women should not have maternity leave, 28% believed it should be unpaid, and 74% believed it should be paid. Displaying classic stereotypical gender bias, the survey-setter did not even ask if men should be entitled to paternity leave. How would women react if they were ignored in this fashion? I, for one, would scoff and shake my head at the ineptitude and lack of logic.

The Truth is Out
Unfortunately, I must confess to my sins. I am embarrassed and contrite. The revised version of the survey, set by yours truly, now includes a question on paternity leave and is available for completion.

More on this topic when I have analysed the results further (hopefully with a COMPLETELY open mind).

Sources:
• Male versus Female Bias in the Childcare Debate, (Survey) SurveyMonkey.com

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

My seventh grade English teacher, Mrs. Turner, paired us up to practice our listening skills. She emphasized that it was important to maintain eye contact, appear genuinely interested, and say little encouraging words like “huh,” “really,” and “okay.” You would think this prepared me well for “speed dating”. Six minutes of polite and active listening, despite the fact that you aren’t remotely interested in Dale’s stamp collection, and you’re debating whether to lie about your age to the next “victim” who is clearly ten years younger than you.

The Dating Crisis
In an effort to find the right mate, many singles are trying alternative dating methods including dating services, online dating, and speed dating. Perhaps this is because the number of adult singles aged 30 to 34 has tripled since 1970, though the majority say they want to be married. Given all these single, and presumably available, individuals; there must be some seriously bad dates thwarting the marriage plans. Can researchers predict the attraction between two people and end the dating crisis?

Faking Out the Love Machine
According to New Scientist, researchers have discovered a way to predict the attraction between two people at a speed dating event by analyzing clues in their voices. One indicator of attraction was the number of interjections that lasted less than a second. The more interjections, the stronger the attraction. Mrs. Turner was WRONG! Good manners and active listening skills seem to fake out the speed dating love machine. Clearly, that’s why I didn’t get any calls after my recent speed-dating adventure; I was too polite.

A Personality Test for Compatibility
Some dating services use tests to predict a couple’s compatibility, including one developed by Dr. Glenn Wilson. This self assessment test, called the Compatibility Quotient, invites participants to complete multiple choice questions (similar to the EQ SQ personality tests) based on 25 factors that most contribute to failed relationships. The closer the answers, the more compatible the two people are. This study dispels the old notion that opposites attract, something that many happily married couples regard as tried and true.

One thing’s for sure, you gotta get out there and strut your stuff before attraction can occur at all. Perhaps the most certain predictor of all is the desire for a partner.

Sources:
• Biography of “Dr. Glenn WIlson” Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley, King’s College LONDON
• Hogan, Jenny. “Learn to be Like a Love Machine.” New Scientist. December, 18, 2004, 184(2478): 36 (Login Only)
• The Facts Behind the CQ Test, Cybersuitors
• The Mating Crisis, KSL TV, 2005

About the author
Angela Novel is a chronically single 30-something who has tried all methods of dating services, including speed dating. She considers her combination of low EQ and varied dating experience crucial to her freelancing writing career.

The image of a woman “wearing the trousers” in a relationship isn’t a pretty one. This description is usually an insult to the man and a dubious compliment for the woman at best. Online, trouser-wearers are described variously as dictators, calling the shots, in charge of the relationship, and worse. Their counterparts are doormats, under the thumb, and “suckers”.

Trouser-Wearer Self-Assessment Tests
There are online quizzes directed at both genders designed to elucidate which partner is the wearer of “an outer garment for covering the body from the waist to the ankles, divided into sections to fit each leg separately.” When put like that it seems ridiculous that it can be such a trying emotional test for women (if they are perceived as wearing them) and men (if they are perceived as not wearing them). Is it possible that “trouser-wearing” parallels a more scientific evaluation of the differences between the male and the female psyche?

An Alternative to the EQ SQ Tests?
Could it be that, as with male versus female biases relating to work and leisure activities, we are actually seeing an empathizing versus systemizing split in the trouser-wearing debate? Has “wearing the trousers” become synonymous with the systemizing male brain type? This may explain why more men (who tend to be systemizers) wear the trousers, figuratively speaking; and why fewer women (who tend to be empathizers) fall into the trouser-wearing category. Perhaps, instead of EQ and SQ quotients, we could start calculating Skirt and Trouser quotients.

A Male Brain Trouser Crime
Some time ago a law was mooted, “[Proposed law] provides that if a person appears in public with his pants below his waist and is exposing his skin or intimate clothing, it is a crime and the person can be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.” It is fortunate that this archaic law was retracted, or Calvin Klein and thongs may never have achieved such notoriety. On the other hand, maybe it was the sight of Britney Spears in the early part of THIS century that spurred Louisiana congressman Dick Shepherd to propose the bill in May 2004.

What a Richard!

Sources:
• Who Wears the Trousers? Tickle
• Who Wears the Trousers? Get Lippy
• Trouser, Dictionary.com
• House Bill No. 1626 by Representative Shepherd CRIME: Prohibits wearing pants below the waist (2004)

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

A father and son are in a serious car accident. The father dies en route to the hospital but the son is rushed into the operating room for emergency surgery. The consultant surgeon is about to make the first incision but suddenly exclaims, “Oh no, I think this is my son!” Surely, the surgeon is mistaken.

Sadly, no. The consultant surgeon is a woman. But how many of you thought that the doctor must be mistaken? We are all guilty of this stereotyping. We cannot help but think of “surgeon” as a man’s career choice. Without any serious analysis, most of us would agree that many jobs and careers fall clearly into “man’s career choice” or “woman’s career choice.” But are we correct? Or do our prejudices cause us blithely to attach a gender to a particular job? How confident are we really that secretary, teacher, and nurse would be the top career choices of women; and truck driver, middle manager, and construction worker would be the top career choices of men?

Men’s and Women’s Top Career Choices Revealed
We should have placed our bets. Data derived from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) tables reveals that women’s top career choices are “secretaries and administrative assistants,” “elementary and middle school teachers,” and “registered nurses.” Men’s top career choices are “drivers/sales workers and truck drivers,” “first-line supervisors/managers of retail sales workers,” and “carpenters.” Even more staggering, perhaps, is the gender representation in each of those occupations. Women comprise nearly 90% of all employees in the women’s three top career choices (combined); and men comprise nearly 85% of all employees in the men’s three top career choices. It seems that some careers rarely cross the gender barrier. The only careers with equal representation from both genders are bakers, news analysts, reporters and correspondents, and physician assistants. Check out the full list of occupations to discover if you’re a woman in a man’s career choice or a man in a woman’s career choice.

The Ultimate Career Choice for Men and Women: To Work or Not to Work
According to 2004 BLS figures, women form about 46% of the labor force and men 54%. However, only 46% of women who could work actually work, compared to 69% of men. Does this mean that women are slackers? Not really, although it does look as if another stereotype applies. There are around 23 million married women not in the labor force, but only around 14 million married men. It seems as if marriage is a fair career choice for some women. There are also 14 million women and 5 million men in a marital status other than married, unmarried, never married, divorced, separated, or widowed not in the labor force.

I don’t want to know.

Sources:
• Employment status by marital status and sex, 2004 annual averages (U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics)
• Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex, 2005 Household Data Annual Averages (U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics)

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

A long time ago in a galaxy very near to home (the one we live in, in fact) it was thought that evil spirits were “allergic” to certain colors. According to Rabbi Dr. R. Brasch, “It was considered that the association of blue with the heavenly sky rendered satanic forces powerless and drove them away.” Blue was thus displayed on male babies to protect them. In classic gender stereotyping that occurs to this day (see Are Men More Equal than Women? The Truth about the Earnings Gap) female babies were considered inferior and so were not protected like this.

As human beings became more civilized they acknowledged this gross neglect of the fairer sex, by introducing pink as the color for girls. The time-frame is a bit hazy, but it’s clear it must have been MUCH later. It’s hard to imagine that choosing the color of their children’s wardrobe made even the smallest blip on the radar of medieval parents.

20th Century Gender Color Stereotypes
It seems that stereotypes change often, and in the early part of the last century pink was a boy’s color. In 1914, “The Sunday Sentinel” newspaper advised parents, “If you like the color note on the little one’s garments, use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention.” In 1918, “Ladies Home Journal” said much the same thing, “…pink being a more decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is pertier for the girl.” It was in the 1950’s, apparently, that pink took over as the color for girls, though I cannot find any definitive evidence in support of this.

The Onset of Gender Color Stereotyping in Childhood
A study carried out within the last ten years, concluded that preschool aged girls prefer the color pink, and preschool aged boys prefer blue. The reasons why this is so are less clear, but the evidence is convincing. Gender stereotyping (if that’s what it is) is well established before children go to school. Preschool children even chose the “right” color (pink for girls, blue for boys) when choosing the preferred color for a child of the opposite sex.

The Importance of Gender Color Stereotyping
But let’s not forget that in and of itself gender stereotyping is not a reflection of the worth of an individual. Certain stereotypical behaviors make life easier for us. It’s convenient, for example, that when a man and woman are heading for the same door, the woman knows the man will open the door and allow her to walk through first (that does still happen, doesn’t it)?

And how else are we supposed to know that a small, bald, and completely swaddled baby is male or female, unless, of course, he or she is dressed in blue or pink?

Sources:
• Why is the Color Blue Used for Boys and Pink for Girls? Historical Boys’ Clothing
• The Effects of Stereotypes and Situational Factors on Childrens Favorite and Preferred Colors, Erin Shoots (1996) The Missouri Western State College

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.