TOPICS:
FEB 19, 2010 07:24 AM
RudieCantFail said:
Otoki said:
OK, this, along with the Chris Rock video, irritates me a bit. Firstly, the Chris Rock video: while having two parents is excellent, it's only excellent if both parents are good parents. If one parent is shitty, it's better that that parent stays out of the child's life so the child has less of a chance of learning fucked up shit. I say this as someone who is friends with SEVERAL single mothers, all but one of whom tried to involve the fathers at first, and then stopped letting them have contact with the children because they were horrible influences.
On the flip side, there are men, like DevilsReject, who are far better parents than their female counterpart. Similarly, I think it's better for the kid to be raised by a responsible father than a responsible father and irresponsible mother.
My main issue with the Chris Rock video is his holding that a woman needs a man to help her raise a child. As I said above, I strongly disagree with his premise that a man needs to be involved. I DO agree with his point that the parent raising the child must be a GOOD parent.
Actually, Chris Rock's initial point, and the one that I was relating to the original post of the thread, was the notion of having a child with the goal of being a single parent.
Of course, if the other parent is really shitty then it's better for them not to be in the child's life, and it's perfectly understandable when this happens as a result of unplanned pregnancy.
However, to purposely conceive a child with the intent of raising it by oneself is, frankly, idiotic.
Which I would totally buy, if he didn’t follow it up with a rant about how all problems are “the momma’s fault”. That extra bit of sexism makes me think his problem has to do with more than just women who set out to have children on their own, but women who are, in fact, raising children on their own. This isn’t the first time Chris Rock had something to criticize women about while somehow ignoring men’s roles.
Besides that, his "I'm gonna tell your daddy" bit didn't really make sense to me, since some of my friends saw their mom as the ultimate scary boss.
motorfirebox said:
i'd say the ideal situation is if both parents could stay home. if you have to choose one... i would choose the mother, not based on gender but on my completely unfounded opinion that mothers tend to take up nurturing roles, whereas fathers tend to take up authoritative roles. granted, it's likely that at least some of the basis for those tendencies is cultural tradition/expectation.
in the end, though, i think the question of who stays home is far less important than the question of whether one stays home, and what the quality of that stay-homing is. i don't think a kid with a stay-at-home dad is less likely to grow up into a good person than a stay-at-home mom.
So you make your first statement, and then counter it with your second statement. Which is it?
motorfirebox said:
wildswan said:
Man, you. . . Haven't you been paying much attention to the fact that many advances in science, medicine, social/cultural perspectives, and Western realities have been made? And you didn't notice how you contradicted yourself in one sentence? "It's not based on gender but. . ." Then you proceed right straight to making it a gender issue.
it's not about gender. it's about the roles our society assigns genders. there have been a lot of advances in many areas of our culture, including what roles are assigned to what gender (that is, what our culture expects and pressures different genders to be good at). but it's not equal yet; our society still generally puts the onus on women to be the nurturers and caregivers. given that expectation, any given woman in our culture is likely to be a bit better prepared for such roles than a man from the same background.
i don't think it's enough of a difference to really matter. like i said, if you have to choose one, all else being equal that's the choice i'd make. and the only reason i said that at all is, well, everybody else in the thread is talking about it. in a thread that hadn't drifted specifically onto the topic of the role gender plays in the choice of who stays home, i wouldn't have said anything at all.
You’re still contradicting yourself. You’ve already admitted it had more to do with socialization than anything (I agree) but I fail to see how that translates to “so in an ideal situation women should be the ones staying home”. We all know how uniform and effective social conditioning is (not), so how does this conditioning indicate that a woman should stay home rather than the most qualified parent, regardless of gender?
And, once again, does “ideal situation” not include gay parents? I know you’re not against gay people raising children, but both you AND Cash (and possibly mdf) keep missing the fact that saying “ideal situation” and then describing only heterosexual relationships sends a pretty heterosexist message.
FEB 19, 2010 07:28 AM
I think the father should be the one to stay at home, ideally. Statistically (by which I mean, I assume with no legitimate supporting statistics), men are much more likely to play D&D than women. How else is the kid supposed to learn? From the non-D&D parent?! Please!! They'll have the poor kid playing a dwarf wizard or something stupid like that. WHY ARE LIBERALS ALWAYS TRYING TO WEAKEN TRADITIONAL RACE/CLASS ROLES?!
Cash's thing above was kind of funny. Because I read the first paragraph, and thought, "Hm, that could be construed as sexist, but he probably didn't mean it that way."
Then he went on to say, "I ABSOLUTELY meant it that way, and suck it if you think saying something sexist means I was being sexist!"
"Oh. Hm. Alright, then. I remember why I often dislike him."
mydogfarted, I don't understand where you're coming from. Sorry. Dude specifically took the time to point out that he meant that moms should stay at home in the ideal situation. That's sexist toward women and men both.
I don't know that he was even considering same-sex parents when he was saying that. I'd hazard a guess that, if pressed, he'd say it's not an "ideal" situation to have two parents of the same sex, but I don't think it's fair to assume he holds a position he hasn't articulated. The other position, however, he specifically did articulate.
FEB 19, 2010 07:33 AM
Otoki said:
This isn’t the first time Chris Rock had something to criticize women about while somehow ignoring men’s roles.
In fairness (and I didn't watch the clip, I don't know if they cut it before this part), he moves on to say, "If the kid can't read, that's momma's fault. Now, if the kid can't read because there're no lights in the house, that's daddy's fault."
It's a very gender-role-biased bit he's doing, but he's a stand-up comic. His job is to take a somewhat offensive position and state is as plain truth, affirming the bias of the audience members as he does it. Or, okay, maybe that's not the stand-up comic's job, but that's one of the more effective ways to be successful as a stand-up comic.
What were we talking about, again?
Oh, right. Dude, don't fuck that chick. What the fuck is she even talking about when she says she's Rastafarian? Are you sure she didn't say Pastafarian?
Cash
USA
OLD SKOOL
FEB 19, 2010 07:39 AM
No...I stand by what I said. Also...what I said wasn't said to be "edgy" or a result of me being bored. Though...admittedly I did throw in the "suck it" for shits & giggles.
Awesome though....that I'm now a homophobe and a misogynist, apparently.
What your pre-conditioned brains missed....was where I didn't denigrate whatever different niche your life fills in society. I said that the "ideal" situation is where a child is born into a happily married family where the mother stays home with the child. That's what I said...."ideal".
It doesn't mean that men make lousy stay at home parents. It doesn't mean that same-sex couples can't raise perfectly healthy & happy children. It doesn't mean that single-parents can't do a good job. Conversely...it doesn't mean that because a child grew up in a happily married home...where their mother stayed home to take care of them means they'll turn out perfect.
The reason it's "Ideal"...but not the ONLY way...is because that's how nature works. Men don't get pregnant...women do....though I suppose that's sexist & misogynistic too?
It's amazing how many women will beat their chests and loudly proclaim..."My Body...My choice" (Which I agree with 100%)....but someone points out that since they carry the child...and also carry the nourishment to sustain the child...they they are the best suited to CARE for the child.....and you're a sexist, misogynistic homophobe. Awesome.
Cash
USA
OLD SKOOL
FEB 19, 2010 07:49 AM
Otoki said:
On to Cash's post:
Cash, I'm assuming you're just in one of your crotchety old man moods where you want to say something offensive that you don't really believe in so you can get a rise out of people. Just in case I'm wrong, though, I'd like to express amazement that you wouldn't be willing to stay at home with your future spawn if your future wife wanted to stay at her job, which could easily support the whole family. Do you feel that, on the basis of having a penis, you are unable to care for children as effectively as a woman?
Do you feel that all men are deficient in child-rearing skills when compared to women?
Or do you just like saying something reminiscent of "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, and if you don't like it go to hell, cuz that's the way it's always been"?
I would like you to point out where, exactly, I said that I wouldn't stay home with my theoretical child...because you're making a statement based on something I never said. You're saying emphatically that I wouldn't stay home with my theoretical child...and that you;re amazed by it...and I'm just wondering where you got that.
To answer your questions in order:
1.) Yes, because I don't produce breast milk.
2.) No.
3.) No.
FEB 19, 2010 07:59 AM
Cash said:
No...I stand by what I said. Also...what I said wasn't said to be "edgy" or a result of me being bored. Though...admittedly I did throw in the "suck it" for shits & giggles.
Awesome though....that I'm now a homophobe and a misogynist, apparently.
What your pre-conditioned brains missed....was where I didn't denigrate whatever different niche your life fills in society. I said that the "ideal" situation is where a child is born into a happily married family where the mother stays home with the child. That's what I said...."ideal".
It doesn't mean that men make lousy stay at home parents. It doesn't mean that same-sex couples can't raise perfectly healthy & happy children. It doesn't mean that single-parents can't do a good job. Conversely...it doesn't mean that because a child grew up in a happily married home...where their mother stayed home to take care of them means they'll turn out perfect.
The reason it's "Ideal"...but not the ONLY way...is because that's how nature works. Men don't get pregnant...women do....though I suppose that's sexist & misogynistic too?
It's amazing how many women will beat their chests and loudly proclaim..."My Body...My choice" (Which I agree with 100%)....but someone points out that since they carry the child...and also carry the nourishment to sustain the child...they they are the best suited to CARE for the child.....and you're a sexist, misogynistic homophobe. Awesome.
I don't understand what you mean by ideal.
Because the usual interpretation in this context would be "best."
Like, sure, other people can do a good job, but they're starting with a handicap because it's really not meant to happen that way.
Which is what we're taking issue with. As far as I'm aware, there are no data to back up that assertion. It comes from your pre-conceptions, which come from the naturalistic fallacy (because this is the way something IS, this is the way it OUGHT to be). It shows a bias and, yes, is sexist.
If you can redefine ideal to mean something apart from "best," you maybe have a point. As it is, it sounds as though you're saying that either the traditional family is going to provide a higher quality childhood than a non-traditional family (say, if you rated it, non-traditional could only get up to 95 while traditional can get to 100), or a traditional family is more likely to provide a good quality childhood (which means the quality is the same, but a traditional family supplies the high quality more often than a non-traditional family). Both of these assertions are biased.
EDIT
And I do hope your entire argument doesn't hinge on breast milk. I think we're all aware that there are solutions to this "problem."
I didn't see anyone suggest that you said what you said to be "edgy." I saw a lot of people saying you said it because you're ignorant of either the implications of your statement or the data surrounding it.
FEB 19, 2010 08:01 AM
Cash said:
No...I stand by what I said. Also...what I said wasn't said to be "edgy" or a result of me being bored. Though...admittedly I did throw in the "suck it" for shits & giggles.
Awesome though....that I'm now a homophobe and a misogynist, apparently.
What your pre-conditioned brains missed....was where I didn't denigrate whatever different niche your life fills in society. I said that the "ideal" situation is where a child is born into a happily married family where the mother stays home with the child. That's what I said...."ideal".
It doesn't mean that men make lousy stay at home parents. It doesn't mean that same-sex couples can't raise perfectly healthy & happy children. It doesn't mean that single-parents can't do a good job. Conversely...it doesn't mean that because a child grew up in a happily married home...where their mother stayed home to take care of them means they'll turn out perfect.
The reason it's "Ideal"...but not the ONLY way...is because that's how nature works. Men don't get pregnant...women do....though I suppose that's sexist & misogynistic too?
It's amazing how many women will beat their chests and loudly proclaim..."My Body...My choice" (Which I agree with 100%)....but someone points out that since they carry the child...and also carry the nourishment to sustain the child...they they are the best suited to CARE for the child.....and you're a sexist, misogynistic homophobe. Awesome.
Couldn't you at least be funny while you're spewing your inane, antediluvian horse shit?
What you are is a semipreciously hetero-normative, whiny, blithely unaware dude who can dish out vitriol, but can't take it. And, you aren't taking responsibility for informing yourself. And. . .And, until you do actually expand your horizons, more than half of what you espouse will be some pretty ill-informed, insensitive, city-dwelling-yokel crap.
FEB 19, 2010 08:07 AM
Cash said:
No...I stand by what I said. Also...what I said wasn't said to be "edgy" or a result of me being bored. Though...admittedly I did throw in the "suck it" for shits & giggles.
Awesome though....that I'm now a homophobe and a misogynist, apparently.
What your pre-conditioned brains missed....was where I didn't denigrate whatever different niche your life fills in society. I said that the "ideal" situation is where a child is born into a happily married family where the mother stays home with the child. That's what I said...."ideal".
It doesn't mean that men make lousy stay at home parents. It doesn't mean that same-sex couples can't raise perfectly healthy & happy children. It doesn't mean that single-parents can't do a good job. Conversely...it doesn't mean that because a child grew up in a happily married home...where their mother stayed home to take care of them means they'll turn out perfect.
The reason it's "Ideal"...but not the ONLY way...is because that's how nature works. Men don't get pregnant...women do....though I suppose that's sexist & misogynistic too?
It's amazing how many women will beat their chests and loudly proclaim..."My Body...My choice" (Which I agree with 100%)....but someone points out that since they carry the child...and also carry the nourishment to sustain the child...they they are the best suited to CARE for the child.....and you're a sexist, misogynistic homophobe. Awesome.
You also seem to be missing that we're calling your remarks sexist, not aganist women, but against both women AND men. Also, we’re talking about your REMARKS, as in what you SAID, not who you are, as a person (besides grumpy).
See the difference? Great. So now that you’re done claiming that you’re a victim of people calling you sexist, we can get back to what you said.
You seem to have some issues with the definition of “ideal”. If by ideal you mean “perfect” or “best case scenario”, I agree with the definition. I do not, however, agree with your idea of the “ideal” situation. Why is a woman staying home the ideal situation rather than the BEST QUALIFIED PARENT? Why does your ideal situation revolve around gender/sex, rather than skill? And if we’re going to make the argument about nature, biological birth, etc, what does that mean for gay parents? Adoptive parents?
Do you see why I’m taking issue with your “ideal situation”?
Cash said:
Otoki said:
On to Cash's post:
Cash, I'm assuming you're just in one of your crotchety old man moods where you want to say something offensive that you don't really believe in so you can get a rise out of people. Just in case I'm wrong, though, I'd like to express amazement that you wouldn't be willing to stay at home with your future spawn if your future wife wanted to stay at her job, which could easily support the whole family. Do you feel that, on the basis of having a penis, you are unable to care for children as effectively as a woman?
Do you feel that all men are deficient in child-rearing skills when compared to women?
Or do you just like saying something reminiscent of "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, and if you don't like it go to hell, cuz that's the way it's always been"?
I would like you to point out where, exactly, I said that I wouldn't stay home with my theoretical child...because you're making a statement based on something I never said. You're saying emphatically that I wouldn't stay home with my theoretical child...and that you;re amazed by it...and I'm just wondering where you got that.
To answer your questions in order:
1.) Yes, because I don't produce breast milk.
2.) No.
3.) No.
Ah, so men AREN'T deficient in child-rearing skills when compared to women. So then why would a woman staying home instead of a man be an "ideal situation"?
I guess my overall issue is with you (and mfb, I guess) taking the position that gender should be a deciding factor in whether or not someone stays home, because “ideally” or “statistically” or however else you want to spin it, you think women are more likely to be nurturing. What you’re missing is that by setting the “ideal” as sex-based rather than merit-based, you’re saying that individuals don’t matter as much as their gender. This is the same stupid attitude that makes the courts rule in favor of women more often in custody battles, even if the woman isn’t as good a parent as the father.
If you ARE willing to stay at home with your theoretical child, why do you say that the ideal would be your partner staying at home? That’s the sort of decision which you wouldn’t know until you are in that position (having a child with that partner). You already said the ideal would be the mother staying home, but what if the woman you have a child with isn’t as nurturing as you are? Would your idea of “ideal” change, or would you still hold on to the idea that since she has a vagina it would have been “the best case scenario” if she stayed home with the kids instead of you?
I know you don’t mean “the only good scenario” when you say “ideal”, but surely you can see why using gender to assign child-rearing roles in a “best case scenario” is flawed.
Cash
USA
OLD SKOOL
FEB 19, 2010 08:07 AM
wildswan said:
Couldn't you at least be funny while you're spewing your inane, antediluvian horse shit?
What you are is a semipreciously hetero-normative, whiny, blithely unaware dude who can dish out vitriol, but can't take it. And, you aren't taking responsibility for informing yourself. And. . .And, until you do actually expand your horizons, more than half of what you espouse will be some pretty ill-informed, insensitive, city-dwelling-yokel crap.
I'm sure everyone in your next support group meeting will agree with you.
FEB 19, 2010 08:08 AM
Accuser said:
Cash said:
No...I stand by what I said. Also...what I said wasn't said to be "edgy" or a result of me being bored. Though...admittedly I did throw in the "suck it" for shits & giggles.
Awesome though....that I'm now a homophobe and a misogynist, apparently.
What your pre-conditioned brains missed....was where I didn't denigrate whatever different niche your life fills in society. I said that the "ideal" situation is where a child is born into a happily married family where the mother stays home with the child. That's what I said...."ideal".
It doesn't mean that men make lousy stay at home parents. It doesn't mean that same-sex couples can't raise perfectly healthy & happy children. It doesn't mean that single-parents can't do a good job. Conversely...it doesn't mean that because a child grew up in a happily married home...where their mother stayed home to take care of them means they'll turn out perfect.
The reason it's "Ideal"...but not the ONLY way...is because that's how nature works. Men don't get pregnant...women do....though I suppose that's sexist & misogynistic too?
It's amazing how many women will beat their chests and loudly proclaim..."My Body...My choice" (Which I agree with 100%)....but someone points out that since they carry the child...and also carry the nourishment to sustain the child...they they are the best suited to CARE for the child.....and you're a sexist, misogynistic homophobe. Awesome.
I don't understand what you mean by ideal.
Because the usual interpretation in this context would be "best."
Like, sure, other people can do a good job, but they're starting with a handicap because it's really not meant to happen that way.
Which is what we're taking issue with. As far as I'm aware, there are no data to back up that assertion. It comes from your pre-conceptions, which come from the naturalistic fallacy (because this is the way something IS, this is the way it OUGHT to be). It shows a bias and, yes, is sexist.
If you can redefine ideal to mean something apart from "best," you maybe have a point. As it is, it sounds as though you're saying that either the traditional family is going to provide a higher quality childhood than a non-traditional family (say, if you rated it, non-traditional could only get up to 95 while traditional can get to 100), or a traditional family is more likely to provide a good quality childhood (which means the quality is the same, but a traditional family supplies the high quality more often than a non-traditional family). Both of these assertions are biased.
EDIT
And I do hope your entire argument doesn't hinge on breast milk. I think we're all aware that there are solutions to this "problem."
I didn't see anyone suggest that you said what you said to be "edgy." I saw a lot of people saying you said it because you're ignorant of either the implications of your statement or the data surrounding it.
Bravo. God I love real men.
FEB 19, 2010 08:10 AM
Otoki said:
You also seem to be missing that we're calling your remarks sexist, not aganist women, but against both women AND men.
You seem to have some issues with the definition of “ideal”.
You and I think entirely too much alike.
FEB 19, 2010 08:13 AM
Cash said:
wildswan said:
Couldn't you at least be funny while you're spewing your inane, antediluvian horse shit?
What you are is a semipreciously hetero-normative, whiny, blithely unaware dude who can dish out vitriol, but can't take it. And, you aren't taking responsibility for informing yourself. And. . .And, until you do actually expand your horizons, more than half of what you espouse will be some pretty ill-informed, insensitive, city-dwelling-yokel crap.
I'm sure everyone in your next support group meeting will agree with you.
You know, oddly enough, I've never been to a support group, but I sure as hell recognize that you need to be in one: Whiny Wrong Babymen Not-so-Anonymous.
FEB 19, 2010 08:15 AM
wildswan said:
Cash said:
wildswan said:
Couldn't you at least be funny while you're spewing your inane, antediluvian horse shit?
What you are is a semipreciously hetero-normative, whiny, blithely unaware dude who can dish out vitriol, but can't take it. And, you aren't taking responsibility for informing yourself. And. . .And, until you do actually expand your horizons, more than half of what you espouse will be some pretty ill-informed, insensitive, city-dwelling-yokel crap.
I'm sure everyone in your next support group meeting will agree with you.
You know, oddly enough, I've never been to a support group, but I sure as hell recognize that you need to be in one: Whiny Wrong Babymen Not-so-Anonymous.
Can we maybe knock off the name-calling? I get that you're seething-mad at his purposely offensive posts, but you're just feeding his victim complex. Which means he's more likely to fixate on you and less likely to answer my questions.
Cash
USA
OLD SKOOL
FEB 19, 2010 08:21 AM
Otoki said:
You seem to have some issues with the definition of “ideal”. If by ideal you mean “perfect” or “best case scenario”, I agree with the definition. I do not, however, agree with your idea of the “ideal” situation. Why is a woman staying home the ideal situation rather than the BEST QUALIFIED PARENT? Why does your ideal situation revolve around gender/sex, rather than skill? And if we’re going to make the argument about nature, biological birth, etc, what does that mean for gay parents? Adoptive parents?
Do you see why I’m taking issue with your “ideal situation”?
No...I don't see why you're taking issue with it....hence the disagreement.
Otoki said:
Ah, so men AREN'T deficient in child-rearing skills when compared to women. So then why would a woman staying home instead of a man be an "ideal situation"?
I guess my overall issue is with you (and mfb, I guess) taking the position that gender should be a deciding factor in whether or not someone stays home, because “ideally” or “statistically” or however else you want to spin it, you think women are more likely to be nurturing. What you’re missing is that by setting the “ideal” as sex-based rather than merit-based, you’re saying that individuals don’t matter as much as their gender. This is the same stupid attitude that makes the courts rule in favor of women more often in custody battles, even if the woman isn’t as good a parent as the father.
If you ARE willing to stay at home with your theoretical child, why do you say that the ideal would be your partner staying at home? That’s the sort of decision which you wouldn’t know until you are in that position (having a child with that partner). You already said the ideal would be the mother staying home, but what if the woman you have a child with isn’t as nurturing as you are? Would your idea of “ideal” change, or would you still hold on to the idea that since she has a vagina it would have been “the best case scenario” if she stayed home with the kids instead of you?
I know you don’t mean “the only good scenario” when you say “ideal”, but surely you can see why using gender to assign child-rearing roles in a “best case scenario” is flawed.
"Child-rearing skills" is a pretty broad term. Can I set household rules, feed, bathe & sustain the life of a 10 year old as well as a woman? Arguably...yes.
For a newborn...I feel a woman is best-suited.
Cash
USA
OLD SKOOL
FEB 19, 2010 08:24 AM
Otoki said:
Can we maybe knock off the name-calling? I get that you're seething-mad at his purposely offensive posts, but you're just feeding his victim complex. Which means he's more likely to fixate on you and less likely to answer my questions.
I don't feel like a victim. If I wanted everyone to agree with me...I wouldn't post my opinions in an open forum. I was just pointing out the interesting dichotomy.
FEB 19, 2010 08:45 AM
Otoki said:
wildswan said:
Cash said:
wildswan said:
Couldn't you at least be funny while you're spewing your inane, antediluvian horse shit?
What you are is a semipreciously hetero-normative, whiny, blithely unaware dude who can dish out vitriol, but can't take it. And, you aren't taking responsibility for informing yourself. And. . .And, until you do actually expand your horizons, more than half of what you espouse will be some pretty ill-informed, insensitive, city-dwelling-yokel crap.
I'm sure everyone in your next support group meeting will agree with you.
You know, oddly enough, I've never been to a support group, but I sure as hell recognize that you need to be in one: Whiny Wrong Babymen Not-so-Anonymous.
Can we maybe knock off the name-calling? I get that you're seething-mad at his purposely offensive posts, but you're just feeding his victim complex. Which means he's more likely to fixate on you and less likely to answer my questions.
I guarantee that, even if I hadn't made totally apt descriptions of his behavior and value systems, he--as history has borne-out--Cash would manufacture one. I also guarantee that he isn't going to change his mind and admit that he posted something hostile and offensive, and preemptively insulted a bunch of people.
He doesn't remotely deserve to be treated with kiddish gloves.
FEB 19, 2010 10:11 AM
wildswan said:
Also, any more big fat sexist whiny hypocritical babymen want to put me on ignore, go right ahead. It's almost an honor.
I put you on ignore for being confrontational and basically responding to me calling you out with a childish response. Perhaps if you ACTUALLY READ my post:
having the ability to have a stay at home parent has been seen to have a positive emotional benefit on children. So, yeah, it is ideal to have a stay at home "parent".
you'd see that, while I kind of defended the idea behind Cash's post, I was also agreeing with you that gender has nothing to do with raising children.
Oh, and my wife is a stay at home mom because she wanted to be, not because I'm some fat sexist who thinks women should be home barefoot and pregnant while looking like Donna Reid when I get home.
motorfirebox
Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004
FEB 19, 2010 07:06 AM