One was about the long drawn out acrimonious battle between conservatives and pro-gay lobbies, precipitated by a hostile though constitutional takeover of AWARE. The sorry outcome of this unfortunate saga was almost predictably, a significant spanking by 'gahment' of AWARE (both old and new guards) and of the exploitative (one sided) journalistic approach of mainstream media. The clear losers in this sad situation were clearly women's rights (which became largely forgotten) and any reasonable attempts to portray homosexuals as reasonable normal people to be accepted in mainstream society. If anything, it strongly reinforced negative stereotypes of women (nasty, emotional, catty) and homosexuals (offensive, deviant, militant). I didn't mention the church because I don't think the church lost much ground. Their conservative views are well known, and people's views of the church probably haven't changed much after the incident. And certainly for most Christians it's life as per normal.
The Singapore Women’s Everest Team (from left to right):Joanne Soo, Esther Tan, Lee Li Hui, Jane Lee, Sim Yi Hui, Lee Peh Gee. (Photo courtesy of Singapore Women’s Everest Team)
The second series of news was about the recent success of the women's team at Mt Everest. Gosh, wasn't this a cause for celebration!! The six gutsy women thumbed their noses at their men colleagues, and achieved for women in Singapore, what all the cat fighting at AWARE failed miserably to do. These women have really done Singapore women proud.
The pompous bigwigs at AWARE should sit up and take notice of these young women, but I doubt they will have the humility and grace to do that. AWARE should have kept their eyes on the ball and concentrated on women's rights, as they were meant to do. Instead they allowed their agenda to be hijacked by a group of vocal pro-gay lobbyists, who successfully made AWARE women's issues synonymous with being gay-friendly, and succeeded in dragging women's issues into the mud. The message that came through very clearly (and still continues to emanate) is 'No women's rights unless you can be gay-friendly'. What about women?
Sigh. So sad.
Posts
24 comments:
Dear Gigamole, this is an insightful observation.
As a family man, I cherish and value the love, inner strength and commitment of my mother and my wife who brought much needed balance to my life. I am sorry Aware has lost its vision. Maybe another woman organisation that values women's contributions to the family, society, equal access to opportunities is needed in Singapore.
Thanks Anon.
Yeah. women are so easily taken for granted because they often do the backroom work, and are the invisible foundations to any happy healthy family.
To equate women's issues with a very narrow controversial lobby for gay rights, is not only tragic but socially irresponsible.
Yes. Perhaps we need a new grouping for women. One that is perhaps more wholesome, and pro-family.
Thanks for this article.
It is indeed really sad how more important and pressing issues have been ignored by AWARE. By ignoring the relavant concerns raised by parents and MOE, it has pushed itself into one corner.
I personally don't see how six women making it to the summit of Everest can compare with the good AWARE has done over the years.
The Old Guard may have accepted the help of "pro-gay lobbyists" (I hope my readers consider me one) in their fight with the New Guard, but I don't think the new-old AWARE has done anything "pro-gay" so far.
I don't think their message is:'No women's rights unless you can be gay-friendly'.
I think their message is: lesbian rights are women's rights too.
(I think it's nice how we don't agree on things, Gigamole; life would be so boring if we did.)
Hi Gigamole
Aware may have done some great things in the past but I think that they've lost focus. They've lost focus by narrowly focussing on the so called women issues of 'lesbian rights' (I just wonder what kind of rights these are - maybe angry doc might want to clarify what he or she means) and 'neutral sexual education for children', forgetting instead that there are more real and pressing women issues to handle: the discrimination at the workplace, the abuse by the careless husband, the wayward children etc etc....
Angry doc may think Aware has done good over the years - I would not disagree but what was done in the past is now irrelevant in the present and future (quite like those investment disclaimers of past performance is never a guarantee of future performance). What is relevant now is we know that Aware cannot be trusted, having stealthily and insidously planted controversial and unnatural ideas into their training materials for our children and to top it all - to be completely unrepentent even in the face of immense majority pressure. They have completely forgotten that this response is the exercise of a basic human right too - the right of parents wanting to protect the minds of their children and their children's children. And their unrepentent attitude smacks of complete disregard and disrespect that the children are ours, and not theirs.
The traits about my mother which I appreciate so much is the ability to love (which is unconditional), to forgive and to sacrifice (which in essence is strength in adversity). Sadly, I don't see any of these in the women in Aware. Until I see at least these attributes in the women of Aware, I must say that Aware has changed and it is no longer what it was. So these ladies can yell, shout and scream whatever they like and as loud as they like, it will not change the current huge public distrust that is against them.
Gigamole, a new grouping for women would be good idea. Maybe JL and friends can start one - I like what I saw in them at the EGM. And I have to thank them and TSM for so boldly facing the belligerent elements (death threats etc) so that MOE can actually have access to an 'internal document' of Aware that actually reveals their real agenda and motives.
How have AWARE 'lost focus'? What have they done that makes you think that they are "narrowly focussing on... 'lesbian rights'"? Did they stop helping women who are discriminated against at the workplace? Did they stop helping women who are victims of domestic abuse?
I don't speak for AWARE but I'll tell you what I mean by 'lesbians rights'. It's the right of a woman to not be told that she is 'sick' because she is a lesbian, and that she needs to be cured. To not be treated as an object of contempt because of her sexuality.
Lesbians rights is not just women's rights, it is also human rights, because people should not be defined solely by or discriminated against simply because of their sexuality or gender. (In fact I think having a women's Everest Team is something sexist.)
Now with regards to AWARE's CSE I will concede that "normal" and "healthy" can be seen as value judgements and parents should have a say when it comes to matters of value judgement in schools, just as I would object to my children - not that I have any right now - being taught that religions are "normal" (just because they are universal to all cultures) and that worshipping a deity can be "healthy" (because of the emotional solace it can bring).
Nevertheless, I agree with the AWARE CSE that homosexual relationships and anal sex can be healthy. I believe what makes a relationship healthy or not is not the gender of the people invovled or the forms of expression, but the trust and respect between the people - heterosexual coital sex can be unhealthy or abusive if the relationship is not built on respect and trust. To me the rule is this: do not use another person contemptuously.
(In the interest of fairness I will disclose that I am an atheist, heterosexual, have been the target of three male paedophiles (don't worry, nothing serious happened), and have no children. I do have a personal stake in the issue of lesbian/gay rights in Singapore which I am not willing to reveal yet. I ask that you judge my arguments and not my intentions.)
Now if I had a son I will teach him that homosexual people at just like 'normal' people are should be judged by how they treat others, and not by their orientation. I will let him attend the CSE but discuss his views on what he was taught afterwards.
If my son is gay I will be sad - not because of his orientation, but because of the discrimination he will face in our society. I will be happy for him if he is in a relationship with another man built on trust and respect, just as I will be unhappy if he was heterosexual but in a dysfunctional relastionship with a woman (or several women...). If I have the ability to love and forgive, will that make me a good father in your eyes?
Oh wow.... what a great discussion! And in the time taken for me to step away to the toliet! :)
Setoiusly, my apologies for being away.... had to help out with a sick relative.
Yep, AngryDoc, I think it is wonderful that we can agree to disagree, and continue to have these discussions. It doesn't necessarily mean that we hold less strongly to our own personal convictions, just that we are able, for the moment, to suspend judgement and listen to the other voice.
So let's continue to do that, shall we?
Like Glassbox, I am not trying to belittle what AWARE has done in the past (to tell you truth I have not been following AWARE until this catfight exploded onto the scene), but merely point out that they were prepared to sacrifice all their 'gains' in the past in defense of a contentious and controversial (yes, contentious and controversial, but not a value judgement of rightness or wrongness)issue championed by a relative minority. In so doing, it was prepared to alienate a whole bunch of women who may have more 'conservative' values. Was it worth it to women's cause in general, to put all your eggs (oops, sexist metaphor!) in a breakable basket. Some (including me) would argue that it was damn stupid (unless of course, it was the main inviolable agenda, and that the others were the sub-aims which could be sacrificed). So no matter how you defend AWARE, that is what it appears to people (otherwise, actually quite disterested) like me.
The Everest women? Well, you know, wommen's causes need not be feminist' nor championed by gender-based women's groups. Today's ST had a report on the Young Women's Leader's Day. Sexist? Perhaps, but championed by a gender-neutral Organization (Halogen Foundation)[http://www.halogenasia.org/About_Us.html]
Likewise, women's achievements in pushing the frontiers go on with or without feminist battle cries. The women's Everest team's achievements was a fantastic positive boost for women. You can say it was sexist, and I wouldn't argue too strongly against you about it, but it was positive, affirming and inspirational for women and young girls growing up.
So which would I rather have? This quiet affirming, effort that enourages young women, or the acrimonious public catfight about lesbian rights. So AWARE would rather win the fight but lose the battle. Unless maybe they felt that that was the battle they were fighting.
Sorry I had expression all wrong...(haven't had my morning teh see). :)
So AWARE would rather win the battle but lose the war. Unless maybe they felt that that was the war they were fighting.
Glassbox,
I do agree with you that perhaps a less feminist, more positive and wholesome women's group needs to emerge that can represent more conservative and mainstream ideas of womenhood. I wouldn't necessarily join but I would encourage its formation, if nothing else to balance the field, so that the floor is not dominated by just one voice (oops...there goes the 'shut up and sit down cry...! :) )
Personally I think women are best helped through quiet, informal channels by means of concerned people quietly working behind the scenes. And actually in Singapore, the environment is not that unsympathetic to women's causes, it's largely a lack of aware-ness (oops) and issues related to priorities etc. I think generally our political leaders are synmpathetic, and do want to do the right thing (whatever this might be).
"(In the interest of fairness I will disclose that I am an atheist, heterosexual, have been the target of three male paedophiles (don't worry, nothing serious happened), and have no children. I do have a personal stake in the issue of lesbian/gay rights in Singapore which I am not willing to reveal yet. I ask that you judge my arguments and not my intentions.)"
Thanks for sharing Angry Doc. I appreciate your honesty and civilness throuighout all of this.
I won't sit in judgement over anyone. We all have our own personal convictions and at the end of the day, we'll have to live with the consequences of our actions or inactions. I have expressed this before in my other posts, but I will say it again here....that often things can seem black and white when we are detached and distant from the problem, and it becomes that much easier to make a judgement. But when the problems hits closer to home, then we are forced to reckon with the greyness of the stutation, and we are compelled to develop much more nuanced approaches. I myself was pretty black and white against divorce until my own domestic difficulties forced me to sit down with God, and work it through with Him. No black and white there. Just lots of His grace and forgiveness.
Have a great weekend.
Personally I think women are best helped through quiet, informal channels by means of concerned people quietly working behind the scenes. And actually in Singapore, the environment is not that unsympathetic to women's causes, it's largely a lack of aware-ness (oops) and issues related to priorities etc. I think generally our political leaders are synmpathetic, and do want to do the right thing (whatever this might be).
Giga, I can't agree more. I agree with one wise man who once told me that women in S'pore cld be equal to men only if we gave away some of our privileges.
I don't like to see women continuing to play the victim or the lesser of the human species.
And to do that, we should stop making a song and dance abt it being six women who climbed Mt Everest. They are simply six brave Singaporeans. Being women shld be seen as immaterial and incidental. It made me cringe to read the ST headline them as "girls"! How much more patronising can u get?
AuntieL, why is it patronising for them to be called girls? They are girls, for crying out loud, not guys!
Persons? That's even more degrading because it denies them of the sexuality.
I am what may be considered a biological feminist. By this, I mean, I would champion the right of a woman to be a woman. Why all this fixation to be equated to a man? Afterall, not being able to carry a pregnancy and nurse a baby, they are the inferior beings. I don't champion equality for the sexes? Why should I? They are not equal!
This does not mean I am perpetuating the view that women are lesser beings, or inferior in any way...just that women are ...different. It's a woman's right to be treated as a woman. Not a 'pretend man'.
These young ladies have hormones and physiologies that do not make them naturally athletic, beefy or strong. Yet they pushed themselves beyond the expected limits of their physiology to achieve something they (and us, if we have that much grace) can be proud of.
You said so yourself, AuntieL, ...'that women in S'pore cld be equal to men only if we gave away some of our privileges.'
Why do you want to do that AuntieL? Women are not identical to men. The gender equality thing is a myth foisted upon us by the militant 'penis-envy' militant feminists. (haha...I am so gonna catch the flak for this). The 'equality' is only true in so far as women should have equal rights to be treated with respect and dignity. It should not mean that women must have everything that men want, and be denied everything then men do not want. That, to me, would be a gross betrayal and violation of womanhood.
So call them girls, young ladies, or women (but please not persons) but let them have their glory they deserve.
Have a good weekend. :)
I am going to do the non-man thing and bake some cookies.
Hi Giga, I've a feeling u may be a mite displeased with me? But allow me to clarify.
1) Girls: patronising becos it's talking down. They are grown women. The alternative isn't guys but women or citizens or Singaporeans.
2. Climbing Mt Everest like going into space is a sexually neutral activity. Yes, it's an achievement as wld be an achievement for men in general too. However we must stop treating such achievements like that of Thai elephants doing abstract paintings!
3. The only thing women can't do is produce sperm and father children. It wld b a feat worth thunderous applause if a group of women thru their own efforts succeed in achieving that. Ditto if men thru their own efforts somehow grow wombs and grow babies in them.
4. As for cooking, some of the best cooks I know outside of restaurants are men.. I shall be posting one such dinner cooked on a regular basis by one such man I'm fortunate enough to know. He also cooked my New year's eve dinner and that's already in my blog.
5. Cooking, like mt climbing, is a sexually neutral activity. U don't need to be a man or woman to do it.
Have a good week Giga. N pse don't stay annoyed!! Pretty pse?
Haha....displeased? No, not at all, AuntieL. Happy always to debate and discuss.:)
There is really nonuetral genderless postion, AuntieL. Remember this is a male dominated world we live in, and the default neutral position is really male defined, hence often women appear to be disadvantaged, or as people say....inferior.But need not necessarily be the case if we are able to redefine what our aims are in terms of what women want rather than in male terms.
If we climb mountains, it's really because we want to and not because we emulate men. Likewise, if we cook, we bring a different type of passion into the kitchen. I would like to think that when I cook, it is the love I bring into the cooking and not because it represents some male define culinary achievement.
So let women be women. Not pretend men.
"But when the problems hits closer to home, then we are forced to reckon with the greyness of the stutation (sic)"
Kinda late, isn't it? AWARE has been around for more than 24 years, and IMHO it is through their experience that they saw that homosexuality has to be addressed. The first time the general public heard about gays was when Goh Chok Tong told TIME magazine the civil service has been hiring homosexuals on the quiet. Nobody complained about it then. Instead, some people got excited about it, and even marketed a condominium targetted for gays. It all got ugly when the self style feminist mentor plotted the coup to champion her own bigotted views. She hasn't got over her defeat, you can see her still at work, instigating her troops to wrote homophobic letters to the press. Has anyone given a thought to how th gays feel? Have you realized the government has legalised anal sex (and fellatio too) for heterosexuals, while homosexuals are still denied the same? Why the double standard? For those who feel yucky about the anal orifice, then wait till you undergo a rectal examination. It's no different from what women go through with their gynaecologist. And yes, the process is sexually neutral.
I find it amusing and amazing that despite AWARE continuing to quietly work on women's rights issues, everyone is fixated on the "pro-gay" lobby, the CSE, etc. Perhaps the press were way too successful in portraying the whole saga out of line.
The assumption that they've lost it is unsubstantiated and not based in facts. And your readers take it as such. Sigh.
In this case, I don't think the press was responsible for the overemphasis on gay issues, although it was true that they were blatantly supporting the old AWARE. Whether it was because they were really pally with the AWARE old guard or they were conscientious supporters of the gay lobby I cannot say for sure.
The problem was that AWARE allowed gay inclusivity to become the issue differentiating new guard from the old. We can argue about whether it was the old guard or the new guard who were responsible for flagging this out, but from my perspective, I believe both guards were agreed upon one thing, that this divide was really about gay inclusivity. I think the public (and pretty much everyone else) saw it very much that way too.
So did they lose it? Yeah.
I am not saying this to run down homosexuals in anyway, but I think the artificial nexus between women's issues and gay issues was unfortunate to say the least. This has proven to be detrimental to AWARE, and the gay cause.
I can understand (well, perhaps not fully since I am not in those shoes) the angst that ChloeAsk expresses. There are legit issues affecting the gay community. I just think trying to solve them under the umbrella of a woman's rights group was probably unwise. It may have worked in the initial stages when people were prepared to close an eye or two, but now that it's been brought into the open, I think it has set both causes back substantially.
Perhaps the gay community might want to think about dealing with their problems openly through a legit LBGT grouping that will give voice to their problems rather than to hide under a woman's agenda? My feeling is that the gay community probably underestimates the level of acceptance in the community. What many people object to is the perceived militancy of the movement. People are suspicious, and the sudden 'revelation' of a 'gay agenda' within AWARE and the CSE, fed into that suspicion and paranoia. Not without cause, I might add.
I believe however, that if the gay community can present their case rationally and openly, seeking out reasonable solutions to their difficulties, they will probably make far greater progress.
Hi Giga:
My feeling is that the gay community probably underestimates the level of acceptance in the community. What many people object to is the perceived militancy of the movement. People are suspicious, and the sudden 'revelation' of a 'gay agenda' within AWARE and the CSE, fed into that suspicion and paranoia. Not without cause, I might add.I say amen to that!
As for our "side" discussion, let me say I'm also against "pretend men" and "pretend women". What i wish to see is a wider recognition that men and women are the same except for our built-in biological functions.
All other differences were grafted on by prevailing social norms thru various ages. Such as housework, cooking, child rearing etc etc
Sure, women of the 21st century in many countries have much catching up to do -- because in the division of labour, most of them were confined to the home whereas the men were out in the earning fields. But things are a changing and have been for decades. S'pore among new countries is in the vanguard to recognise that women deliver as good as men -- wherever n whenever we are given the opportunity.
So society, least of all women, shouldn't go gaga over women doing something that other women hadn't done -- yet. Women who climb Everest or go into space aren't performing monkeys. It just happened they didn't have the chance or the inclination to do these be4.
Thanks for giving me the space to express my views on this issue. I'll kwei kwei be silent after this.
I wish to disagree with you agreeably ;)
Hey AuntieL, how come you got the idea that we have all been 'kwei kwei' on this blog? Seems like we've been quite good at s*** stirring...hehheh.
Anyway, I think we've both been very agreeable, don't you? :)
But back to the discussion....I happen to be of the view that our ideas of what constitutes value in society and excellence in human performance has been pretty much been defined in masculine terms. While it's true that women can and do aspire to some of these ends, it tends to limit women's contributions, and immediately disadvantage women because of their biology.
'Gender neural' approaches do tend to have biases towards masculinity, so I tend to be rather cool to the idea. Better to encourage society to value men and women differently for the roles they play in society.
Where the Everest young ladies are concerned, perhaps it's true that the gender probably doesn't matter much... but we should encourage them whether they be kids, girls, guys, handicapped (sexual or otherwise... :) ) or whatever else...
:)
Hi Gigamole
You said "Better to encourage society to value men and women differently for the roles they play in society."
Cannot agree with you more on this.
I feel rather sad that many girls these days don't know how to cook and that many boys have not learnt to fight (on the street I mean... although I hope that the NS does help them). Our society has definitely evolved from the kampung type community based structure of at least 3 generations, to the current pigeon holed housing models. With tax incentives telling us that it pays off economically for women to become baby bearing machines and to stay at work and hubbys to stay home - it has very sadly meant that our girls are going to be conditioned to ignore their 'maternal' instinct for the 'masculine' work of being the family provider.
My mum was a career woman type - she worked as a nurse, started her own business and brought up her children. I remember her most not for her career or money she made but for her unconditional love, her diligence to wake up every morning to go to the market to buy the freshest ingredients and her efforts for cooking the best meal for us. She had her maids to help her but she was always there to make sure that the cooking had a standard that could stand even the scrutiny of outsiders (when there was none). I remember her sleeping later than me and waking up earlier than me.
As for me, I have a problem emulating her diligence. Why? I think its because of my different priorities in life. In a way, I am much more selfish. I find that I have less patience with my children, demand more from them and frankly, just do enough to get by on the cooking. I always ask myself what my children would remember me most for? Is it the money I bring home or is it the love that they feel, experience and eat from how I run the household? Unfortunately, I don't think they will remember me with much fondness like how I would remember my mum.
And why is this so? I think its partly the society we are in where the pursuit of education for the girls have ended up trying to make the girls more like the boys rather than having an education that helps the girls realize their true strengths - strengths that only a female will have. And the other part is of course, the pursuit of the acquisitive lifestyle which means you will need double income to make things much more comfortable - not just comfortable.
I don't have answers to these issues but I do know that some of these values which I cherish of my mum will hopefully be passed down to my children - and the only way is for them to interact with my mum. Yes, in fact, as I write, perhaps that is the missing link. The breakup of the 3 generation structure has caused us ladies to forget that we are female and what makes us fulfilled as women. And perhaps a way to reduce this 'dissonance' is to bring back the 3 generation family. I tell myself that when my children have children of their own (and I certainly do and perhaps would like to use the word insist), I will make it a point as grandmother to do my share of 'mothering' - probably to the chagrin of my children or daughter in law :). Hahah... it'll be quite fun to make it a 'rule' for everyone of my 4 kids to host me for a period when they move out on their own...
I can so empathize with you.
You know that the breakup of the nuclear family is a very male approach don't you. There can only be one alpha male, and each contending male has to move out to start his own tribe. This breakup also reduces the matriarchal content of society, because in a highly extended family, the women have far greater influence though the family structure. Ultimately, the familial responsibilities become subordinated to greater social demands.
The feminist movement did some good in highlighting the discrimination against women, but did us all a great disservice in pushing too much towards trying to make women equal to men, in domains which are suited to the biology of men.
So women are increasingly forced to deny their biology.
I would really like to see in Singapore, a greater celebration of womanhood. Not the patronizing accolades when a woman achieves pretend man-hood..(and yes, I was somewhat guilty of that with respect to the Everest teams achievements)..but when she achieves recognition for being a woman.
Which raises the question as to what women want to define as achievements that are appropriate for her gender and biology?
Hi Gigamole
Celebrating womanhood is a good idea. I think we should celebrate the virtues and traits that make us remember our mothers and for husbands, their wives.
Here is something from the Bible which is a tribute to a women of noble character. Its rather strange that we use the word 'noble' on a woman....I'll have to check the original text as to the original meaning.
The Wife of Noble Character (Taken from Proverbs 31)
10 [c] A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 "Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all."
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
31 Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
Here's a wikipedia link to Proverbs 31, and to the Hebrew word 'chayil'.
"The word חיל (chayil) appears in verse 10 and 29 of the passage, thought as the summary of the good woman's character. Traditionally it has been translated "virtuous" or "noble." Some scholars have suggested that it rather means "forceful," "mighty," or "valiant" because the use of the word in the Tanakh is almost exclusively used regarding warfare."
Hi Gigamole
Thanks for checking up on that word.
So it looks that this tribute was a tribute expounding the 'valiant', 'mighty', 'forceful' warfare type of attributes of a woman. Interesting that we think of these as 'masculine' traits, rather than feminine traits.
Perhaps there is something about the things a woman do which invokes the 'warfare' attributes. One good instance is when her children are harmed and she takes up the role of defender and protector. Also, perhaps in a world where atrophy sets in easily in almost anything, a certain type of 'warfare' is required to keep order in the house and household.
Post a Comment