A Father Cannot Be a Mother, and He Should Not Try

by W.F. Price on September 14, 2011

From the beginning of the identity politics era, which is when women and men began to see each other as rivals, there’s been a lot of one-upsmanship over parenting, and who is the more important parent. In the public sphere, women won hands-down, but this has turned out to be a disaster for the millions of children who, as a consequence, grew up in broken, fatherless homes.

Concerned men have responded to this by saying that they are every bit as good at parenting as women. Many have embraced the concept of equality, suggesting that women are no more capable of raising children than men. In a sense they are correct, as children raised by fathers seem to do better than those raised by single mothers, but they are also wrong in some regards.

Mothers and fathers are both important, but they are complementary; each has a role to play. The tragedy of the modern family is that the father’s role has been overlooked, replaced by the idea that children need only mothering and material provision to be properly raised. This attitude has become so thoroughly entrenched in our culture that even men who defend fatherhood have internalized it, and often their responding argument seems to suggest that men are just as good at mothering as women.

The truth is that men, in general, make inferior mothers. Men can care for infants and small children in a pinch, but they aren’t very well suited to it. Mothering comes to a man about as well as fixing cars does to most women, which is to say it’s a forced task. When an infant comes into a man’s family, he will feel a great deal of tenderness for the child, he will be protective of it, and he will go to work ensuring its safety. However, he doesn’t understand the baby’s vocalizations as well as women, the nonverbal communication eludes him, he cannot nurse, and he is usually clumsier with the details of cleaning, dressing and feeding the child. With infants and small children, emotional communication is standard, so women’s tendency to think with their feelings is an advantage in dealing with them.

However, just because men don’t make very good mothers does not mean that they have no role to play. In fact, it is because they are not mothers that fathers are important to children. Childhood is temporary; along with physical growth it is a time to prepare for adulthood. As children grow, they must learn to think rationally, communicate directly and navigate the physical world. Humans, as cultural beings, need to learn to do these things. Nobody has to teach a baby to cry or suckle, or even walk, but as children grow the number of things they need to learn increases exponentially, and it is up to parents to teach them.

Although encouragement and emotional support may be helpful, rational, deliberate teaching is a very different process from caring for a baby. And the best teaching is both rational and deliberate. Teaching a child to ride a bicycle, for example, involves some encouragement, but instruction is far more important. When it comes time to learn to drive, it is crucial. As adults, we take many of these tasks for granted, but for children they are significant challenges. For most of us it was our fathers, or other men in our lives, who taught us to do many of these things.

Another important role fathers play is setting a behavioral example for their children. There is little more pathetic than a young man who resorts to emotion whenever he faces a problem. Temper tantrums and physical aggression may be the norm for toddlers, but the adolescent who engages in this behavior is on the path to prison. Young men who grew up without a rational, calm male presence in their lives are handicapped in that they have not had the benefit of a good example to follow. It is therefore no surprise at all that our penal institutions are generally filled with men who grew up without father figures in their lives.

Because infants and small children relate to their mothers on an emotional level, it sets a pattern for life. This emotional bond is crucial to the well-being of infants, and to becoming an emotionally functional human being, but if it is not balanced with another kind of relationship, it can hinder maturity. This is where fathers step in, providing a refuge from the emotionally demanding and taxing relationship between mother and child. As the child approaches maturity and begins to take steps toward independence, it is indispensable. Arguably, this is good for mothers as well; without a father to step in and provide an emotional time-out, mothers will often exhaust themselves in a fruitless effort to manage their adolescent children with the same techniques they used when they were smaller.

Because of the psychological power of the mother-child bond, people tend to think of the mother as the default parent, and this has influenced public policy. Sentimentality tends to have a great deal of influence in democratic decision making, so we’ve enshrined the mother with child as a sort of holy, inviolate icon. This is nothing new, and examples of this thinking can be found throughout the world. Catholics venerate Mary mother of Jesus, Buddhists Kuan Yin, and the Chinese character for “good” (hao) is an ideogram of a mother with a child (left part of character woman, right part child):

So, we can see that it would be futile to try to undermine or replace the mother figure in the common mind, because it appears to be innately associated with our most basic concept of parenthood and all that is good in the world. However, this is more of a rebuke to feminist concepts than it is to the idea that fatherhood is important. The idea of the hard-driving woman who takes on a masculine role and eschews motherhood is repugnant to our deepest sense of propriety; fatherhood is not.

The question this leaves us with is what can we do to restore respect for and recognition of the importance of fatherhood? We cannot achieve this by claiming that there is no qualitative difference between mothers and fathers, because that would be a false, deceptive argument, just like the feminist claim that men and women are innately the same except for “social conditioning.” Although it may be counterintuitive given contemporary politics, the best way to restore a respect for fatherhood would be to emphasize the difference between mothers and fathers. We have to reject the idea that men can and should be motherly, and instead emphasize how important it is to children that fathers be men, and provide them with those things that mothers cannot. Rather than argue that the role mothers play is overrated and easily substituted for by a man, we should concede that motherhood is unique and essential, and then point out that it precludes women from adequately taking on the father’s role.

Fathers may not be able to suckle their children, and they may not be very good nannies or nurses, but women are not as good at teaching their children practical skills and to be independent adults. Perhaps a good way to put it is this:

Mothers are essential for healthy, well cared for children; fathers are essential for healthy, functional adults.

As men, we do not need to pretend that we can be mothers, nor should we want to. Our role as fathers is perfectly respectable, and our parenting is just as important over the many years of human childhood.

{ 63 comments… read them below or add one }

Ken September 14, 2011 at 06:04

Outstanding Article. I don’t think this subject could have been put in a better way. The OBVIOUS truth placed in simple terms here is making me think once again that the “social engineering” of removing fathers from their children’s lives is intentionally done to WRECK western civilization because otherwise those in favor of “replacing” fatherhood (manhood entirely!) are either certifiably (collectively) insane….OR! ~they know what they are doing and want civilization to collapse to replaced with god-only-knows-what.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader September 14, 2011 at 06:20

It’s been said various ways in various places: if there was a virus, or a bacteria, that caused a disease with the exact same results as “fatherlessness”, the outcry for a cure would be deafening. If a known disease increased the risk of poor impulse control and all that follose from it – drug abuse, alcoholism, teenaged unmarried pregnancies, high school dropouts, vandalism, arrests, terms in the juvie jail system, and so forth, then there would probably be a telethon, and surely be a month set aside to “raise awareness”.

But there isn’t, because fathers are men, and men are disposable in this society; feminists hate us, and tradcons regard us as domestic animals that can easily be replaced.

My suggestion is multifold: point out the facts of fatherlessness. Lay it on thick, “Fatherless Kills”. Stop using the childish term “Dad” which is short for “Daddy”, replace it with “Father”. Point out that women can not, not, not be fathers. Feel free to point out that if fatherlessness was a disease, we’d all want to cure cases of the disease and vaccinate* children to prevent it. Above all, point out that for all the lip service paid to fatherhood by the various cliques of feminism, Western society is actively, virulently, anti-father and anti-fatherhood.

Demand that “Father” is not, and never should be, a kind of vending machine that combines sperm donor and ATM. That sort of dehumanizing objectification is totally unacceptable.

* It is ironic that feminists are eager to vaccinate with Gardasil for HPV, even though that vaccine has no effect on the virii that cause about 30% of cases of uterine cancer. So the vaccine can be said to have a 30% failure rate. Fatherhood has a lower failure rate than that, I suspect…but ideological blinkers keep feminists from ever admitting the facts.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 1
Ashley September 14, 2011 at 06:22

Ironic I should come across this after reading this:

http://feminismandconsequences.blogspot.com/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Ollie September 14, 2011 at 06:30

Off topic, but here is an excellent info-graphic that demonstrates one of the major points that can be used to debunk the pay-gap myth: men are much more likely to be killed or injured on the job.

http://submitinfographics.com/all-infographics/infographic-workplace-injuries-by-age-and-gender.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 September 14, 2011 at 06:34

Outstanding piece, Welmer. It used to be obvious that children benefit most when they have two opposite sex parents – with the woman being “motherly” and the man being “fatherly.”

I fear for the next generation of children: even if they’re lucky enough to live in a house where the mother doesn’t use the apparatus of the state to evict the father: how prepared will those men (raised by a generation of single mothers) be to be not just fathers, but fatherly?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2
Ken September 14, 2011 at 06:50

“I fear for the next generation of children: even if they’re lucky enough to live in a house where the mother doesn’t use the apparatus of the state to evict the father: how prepared will those men (raised by a generation of single mothers) be to be not just fathers, but fatherly?”>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Right on….
and there are clearly plenty of folks out there who insist on the total destruction of western civilization to “rebuild” society into a sick version of marxist “utopia”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Rocco September 14, 2011 at 07:00

If this is about saying thanks to mothers I will say thanks to my mother. If this is to make out that fatherhood is somehow magically less important than motherhood, I don’t know, and don’t think it’s answerable.

Women focus on being good enough parents, not the very best.

http://www.goodenoughmother.com/

And the “good enough” mother standard is the one they use in family court to decide custody in Califronia.

IMO we should be striving to be the best fathers we can be and honoring the other influences in our childs lives including their moms.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
MWPeak September 14, 2011 at 07:08

Young men who grew up without a rational, calm male presence in their lives are handicapped in that they have not had the benefit of a good example to follow.

The key is “presence.” If the father is rational and calm, but not present, then he is doing his child no good.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
Pirran September 14, 2011 at 07:09

To tie in with this (and your previous post) the BBC (remarkably, give their usual misandrist drivel) allowed a father appreciating female child psychologist (UUhhhWhaa?…..Cats sleeping with dogs; Sun plunging into the sea; end-times, man, end-times) called Laverne Antrobus to make a program about a year ago called the “Biology of Dads” which showed just how necessary fathers are in the development of sons AND daughters. Needless to say, it’s now unavailable on the Beeb and is only partly available on YouTube (the last part is missing). There is a complete HD version that’s been uploaded to an Asian site, but that could take an age to download depending on your broadband connection.

It’s definitely worth a look though, as it does crush a lot of Rad-Fem misandry and quarter-truths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ0RJaezYwk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FU32J8dM3o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvzlBmbToko

http://www.56.com/u93/v_NTkxNTQ0NzQ.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
criolle johnny September 14, 2011 at 07:13

I’ve worked with inmates.
I’ve worked with addicts.
I taught a GED class for two years.
Children need two parents.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 0
Pirran September 14, 2011 at 07:17

I’ve got a better link to the “Biology of Dads” documentary by Laverne Antrobus. Seems to be complete:

http://watchdocumentary.com/watch/biology-of-dads-video_a42f24820.html#.TnC3A-zguPY

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer September 14, 2011 at 07:41

http://submitinfographics.com/all-infographics/infographic-workplace-injuries-by-age-and-gender.html

————————–

Thanks for the link Ollie but whoever concocted this graphic needs to spend a little time with The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward Tufte.

I followed the link up to the “Infographics” home page and it appears to be a web site devoted to everything that’s wrong with communicating quantitative information. They are violating every rule of aesthetic design.

OK, I think I see the source of their problem :

http://submitinfographics.com/all-infographics/top-ten-reasons-to-legalize-marijuana-infographic.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer September 14, 2011 at 07:45

Welmer, speaking of disturbing graphics, are you going to publish my “Elmer Massage” essay? I spent a long time putting that image together. Maybe it’s just too boiler-plate Elmer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
buck swamp September 14, 2011 at 07:54

IMHO, your argument that men make “inferior” mothers is kind of weak. You may be technically correct as a broad generalization, but a fair percentage of females make pretty lousy mothers, too. And even the best women tend to be, bless their hearts, a little unstable.

Of course, two loving and competent parents is the ideal. But one loving and sane man is way better than a crazy woman.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 4
Curiepoint September 14, 2011 at 08:00

It seems acceptable though, that mothers pretend at fatherhood and everyone calls that dedication as a parent and “brave”. I once dated a single mother who had a son, and she used to pride herself on having to be both mother and father to him.

Needless to say, that didn’t work out all that well.

I find it ruefully amusing that mothers think that they know what it means to grow up a man. What they propose is a woman’s ideal as to what a man should be, without regard to their child’s identity as a man, their sense of belonging in society, their duty as men, and their basic innate pride in being a man with purpose and pride. To them, it’s all about behavior and nothing else.

Mothers who do not take an active role in finding a male role model for their sons are guilty of abuse, purely and simply. They are denying their sons basic necessities to become men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
doclove September 14, 2011 at 08:08

The whole idea of Feminism, Cultural Marxism and the current cultural climate we have now even that supported by what is considered Social Conservatives is to destroy the weakest link, the Biological Father. Sadly, it seems most Social Conservatives are useful idiots and tools of the Feminists and Cultural Marxists; and, most don’t have a clue as to what they do. A higher percentage of Feminists and Cultural Marxists but not all do know of the damage they cause. When specificly the Biological Father or even the Foster Father is given rights over the children, it has a stonger tendency to civilize the children into Civilized Adults capable of living in Civilization. Patriarchy, two parent homes with the Father in charge of the family, or at least the father alone in charge of the family in the event of divorce preceeded and is a precondition of Civilization which is only a few thousand years old, while the Matriarchy(and maybe Misandry), a Mother in charge of the Children or a Mother raising the Children alone preceeeded civilization for millions of years. This is the best article I have read from a current perspective and historical perspective I have read.
http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Uncle Elmer September 14, 2011 at 08:09

“Mothers who do not take an active role in finding a male role model for their sons are guilty of abuse, purely and simply. They are denying their sons basic necessities to become men.”

This is what is so infuriating about women in lesbian marriage who have sons by turkey basters. They spout that the male “friends” in their circle will provide all the role models the kid needs. But there’s a big difference between a man who is occasionally there during the good times vs. a father who will help the kid through illness and dealing with bullies or school troubles.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
Ken September 14, 2011 at 08:52

“This is what is so infuriating about women in lesbian marriage who have sons by turkey basters. They spout that the male “friends” in their circle will provide all the role models the kid needs. But there’s a big difference between a man who is occasionally there during the good times vs. a father who will help the kid through illness and dealing with bullies or school troubles”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well-put Uncle Elmer!
and from what i’ve seen of lesbian couples, their ONLY male friends being gay themselves….yeah, real good male role models for boys to learn from :(

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer September 14, 2011 at 09:05

Thanks Ken.

A boy needs a man to teach him to cuss and spit and appreciate the finer things, like The Three Stooges.

I think I told this anecdote before.

My brother was helping his son on some jr.high field trip. His son disobeyed him about leaving the premises or something, and so they had a bit of anger. On the bus his son was acting pissed about his old man and some black classmate said “At least you got a dad.” Ouch.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
keyster September 14, 2011 at 09:09

It’s neither the mother NOR the father that’s needed to raise children. It’s government funded Day Care Centers…otherwise known as “other women who’re PAID to raise the children”…you know the “Village”.

To the erstwhile feminist women have no hope of competing directly with men unless “collective government revenue” (taxes) are “redirected” towards day care centers that begin indocrinating the little “burdens” while still in their formative years.

Whenever you hear, “it’s for the children”, that’s code for “it’s for women to be more like men, so men will no longer be necessary.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Lyn87 September 14, 2011 at 09:11

Rocco,

I followed your link to the “goodenoughmother” website out of morbid curiosity. What a cesspool. The first letter was from a woman who was depressed and stressed out because she’s fat and has a two-year-old son (Horrors!) and her husband has a 40-hour-a-week job, so she’s overwhelmed. (She claims to be depressed and has no job, so the solution is for her to hire a babysitter and do less housework so she can lay even more than she already does.)

OF COURSE she’s deserving of pity. /sarc

Another letter was from a woman whose daughter was dating a “loser.” She determined his “loser” status because…

…wait for it…

He’s been diagnosed with depression and doesn’t have a job, so he lays around all day.

Like I said, watching society unravel out of morbid curiosity.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Towgunner September 14, 2011 at 09:11

Stuff like this hits home (literally) for me, but that is why I am so ardently against feminism and social engineering. Should a man be a father and a women a mother, male and female, nuclear family? Seeing how I had to grow up in a single parent female led household I believe I am more qualified to comment on this than any academic, social engineer or selfish lesbian or gay my answer cannot be any more emphatic – YES. The “modern family” is actually the worst manifestation of human indulgence and selfishness. At the core it takes the interest of the parents as priority over children. Look at how things are positioned by our media today i.e. traditional family prevents women from a career (self), gays want to raise kids too (emphasis on ‘want’ implying a desire not need again derived from selfishness) and even with men the modern family concept “liberates” because they can keep on fu*kin, as if life is just one big bud light commercial. What I hate is that the same people that cry and moan about this are the same ones that spout off about “what’s best for children”??? What a gross hypocrisy in the highest order. First, it’s not about what is absolutely the best for children, much of this world is left to chance, rather it’s about what will be the most optimal conditions. Again the most optimal conditions for kids are being raised by biological male and female mother and father with the roles defined by nature accordingly. If these women and gays really want what’s best for the kids, they should encourage traditional marriage, period. And when they rebuke that with statements like rampant bastard children, again if they really believe in what’s best for children, then they would police their own camps and encourage responsibility and self restraint instead of unhinged promiscuity, which is another attribute of a selfish person. In the end, an entire generation must pay for the selfishness of the “career women”, who has also bankrupted this once great country and on top of putting herself first before her offspring left them an enormous bill that they will have to slave to pay off. And women are supposed to be the more compassionate?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
namae nanka September 14, 2011 at 09:20

A good site about misandry in the the latter parts of the 19th and early 20th century.

The Unknown History of MISANDRY

FACTS which contradict what is taught in the universities and which even run counter to the assumptions made by critics of misandry.

——-

“A Monopoly on their Children” – Misandric Parenting in 1939

http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/07/monopoly-on-their-children-misandric.html

How women ever got the idea that mothers alone love their children and that fathers have no more affection for their offspring than an alley cat has for his, no one knows, but that they do hold to this theory is amply proven by the ruthlessness with which they separate their children from their fathers when they happen to want to divorce their husbands.

Mothers will rise up en masse and deny the allegation, but it is true that many of them arc so jealous of their children’s affection for their father that they, unconsciously perhaps, try to come between them and alienate them from each other. Many mothers never even let their children and their fathers get acquainted with each other.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Firepower September 14, 2011 at 09:32

Perhaps pre-civilization offspring did basically well with only a mother.

In the civilized world, many factors dictate both parents are needed.

Until laws change, until couples take seriously the marriage union of male and female, BOTH parents must raise children.

Until couples re-learn the necessity of how to stay together “for the children’s SAKE” it is best if they stop having children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Booch Paradise September 14, 2011 at 09:57

Great article, but I do wonder if the reason that men appear to make better single parents is because there are so many more single mothers than fathers. And with the way family law goes its only in cases were the man is one of the best that society has to offer that they even think of giving him kids. Plus its just the natural biological consequence that mothers end up raising kids from casual relationships where the father leaves. If it was magically the other way around and the fathers who leave and often end up in prison ended up raising the kids, they’d probably still end up pretty screwed up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11
Rebel September 14, 2011 at 10:11

The equation is so simple it boggles the mind:

In a patriarchy (read: civilized society) fathers and mothers are required to maintain said civilization.

In a matriarchy (read un-civilized society) only mothers or any other person is required to maintain status-quo. Remember Hilarious Clinton’s famous words:”It takes a village to raise children”.

This, to me, is a CLEAR indication that women in the Western sphere have opted for matriarchy. ONCE AND FOR GOOD.

Now, if a man wants to be a father and contribute to civilization, the West is no place to go. Can anybody dispute that?

I have come to fully accept the undeniable fact that the “family” is no longer viable in our society. Fighting this tendency is futile and leads to no good. I understand that some of you are trying to salvage whatever little there is to salvage but I assure you that it is completely in vain.

Don’t fight the decay: too late now.

Chose your wife wisely from the other 92% of the world’s female population.

And be happy.

I used to revolt at the thought of western civilization being “deconstructed”. Now I merely find it amusing.

May I suggest to my brothers here to quit worrying, to not care at all, to not give a shit and to chose to live your life as best you can.

Fight a fight that you can win: not this rigged game. Acceptance brings peace and puts an end to stress. Think of your health and most of all think of your well-being.

This is yet another way of saying: “Abandon ship”: this one is sinking and you don’t want to sink with it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 14, 2011 at 10:15

What a gem this one is!!

http://www.henrymakow.com/

Proof that I’m right when I say “abandon this society”.

Even banks know that now.

Enjoy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Rocco September 14, 2011 at 10:48

That link on the good enough mother site was the first random site that come up searching for good enough mother, but I think it’s alot more representative of average parenting than what most guys I know aspire too, which is much higher standards.

Here we have the NYT’s about what these good enough mothers think of fathers. Here a journalist cannot tell TV shows from reality and uses a new crime drama featuring a single mom by choice, she got divorced, and uses it to denigrate all men (that would be her husband):

“Maybe it’s the timing: All this workload resentment comes at a point when real-life husbands are at an all-time down-low, be it sex-tweeting (twexting?) congressmen or international bankers accused of preying on hotel maids. But for whatever reason, male inadequacy keeps popping up in many a new show. ”

http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/arts/television/the-protector-with-ally-walker-on-lifetime-review.html?ref=arts

Yes Rebel, we need to withdraw from them now, they even hate fictional representations of men, it’s really kinda sick.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Lsmbr September 14, 2011 at 11:08

Mother, Father.
Yin, Yang.

Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Boxer September 14, 2011 at 11:48

In a healthier era, with better values, a few fatherless men could rise to functional lives (George Washington is a good example), though this was in an era when women didn’t delude themselves with silly notions like male disposability, and male relatives helped out. (Most of these fatherless men who made something of themselves had uncles or grandfathers). These days, fatherless kids grow up with a whole lot of problems. I’m one of these. It takes a bit of doing to get some self-awareness and catch up to one’s peers.

All you brothers who don’t want kids of your own can probably find boys (and girls too) within your extended families who are being deprived of a relationship with their own dads. Go to work. You don’t have to be crass about things with young kids, but you ought to spread the manly virtues to the next generation if you can, if only to despite the female relatives who have committed the crime. I have a nephew. I never tell him I hate women, but I always take pride in pointing out how much fun I have as a single guy, and I teach by example that one doesn’t need to take women too seriously. I figure he’s one less white knight mangina and maybe he’ll make some healthy contact with his own dad as an adult.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
Uncle Elmer September 14, 2011 at 12:21

“Maybe it’s the timing: All this workload resentment comes at a point when real-life husbands are at an all-time down-low, be it sex-tweeting (twexting?) congressmen or international bankers accused of preying on hotel maids. But for whatever reason, male inadequacy keeps popping up in many a new show. ”

http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/arts/television/the-protector-with-ally-walker-on-lifetime-review.html?ref=arts

——————————

I have seen billboards for this show while walking through the airport. Two lady pros solving crimes while still lookin hot and takin care of business.

TV has been taken over by women and writing staffs are predominantly women developing shows for women about women.

When Salon had an essay complaining that “serious” talk shows did not include enough women I pointed out that daytime TV is wall-wall women’s talk shows. They promptly deleted my post.

Years ago I remember a funny Reader’s Digest essay “Hicks Nix Sticks Flicks”; meaning that people who live in the countryside are not interested in yokel films. They wanted urban dramas or anything but reminders of the hardships of country life.

So I wonder why would women want to watch shows depicting single-motherhood professionals.

Perhaps because it is a portrayal of how they think things ought to be vs. the reality of how they are.

Witness the dumb commenter on that site saying “Finally a reality show that depicts reality”.

Lady, it’s a fictional drama. It has no basis in reality.

Yet they believe it does.

At least we know that Big Time Wrestling is fike.

But we pretend to believe it.

Drives women nuts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
keyster September 14, 2011 at 12:22

“Until couples re-learn the necessity of how to stay together “for the children’s SAKE” it is best if they stop having children.”

Tell this to the female half and her media, that portrays and perpetually glorifies single motherhood as both heroic and liberated from a man. As long as she’s exhalted and even rewarded for her narcissistic behavior, she’ll keep doing it.

1) College cock carousel
2) Careerist on the hunt for alphas
3) Coerce a desperate beta to marry
4) Conceive a couple of kids
5) Conclude the marriage
6) Become a cultural icon as “heroic/struggling single mom”
7) Start over at step #3

It’s the modern female’s “road map of life”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
Vortac September 14, 2011 at 12:24

“..and there are clearly plenty of folks out there who insist on the total destruction of western civilization to “rebuild” society into a sick version of marxist “utopia”.”

Like the old saying goes; “An apple rotten to the core will fall under it’s own weight”.

Western “civilization” (this is more like ‘barbarization’) does not need any help into destroying itself.

There are also plenty of people who think something good can be built on something thoroughly sick and rotten, and that we already live in the best possible world, Utopia, with only some minor tweaks to be done here and there.

Marxism was never about Utopia though, it was always about control and enslavement of the people. We live in a sort of capitalist-communist-nihilist-system right now, and one part of communism – feminism – is very strong power these days. So if anyone is dreaming of ‘marxist utopia’, they are already living in it – this is it!

Frankly, I’d rather built a -real- Utopia than anything based on any “ism”. But a good system cannot be built on a rotten system, dependent on it’s host system. Only when the inevitable happens and everything collapses, can something good be built – only then the evil that plaques this world, can’t interfere and influence what is built and how anymore, and people can be free.

- Vortac

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Vision September 14, 2011 at 12:28

Case in point,

a) If we want the next generation of Americans to be intelligent, respectful, and reliable, then we need men to take a predominant role in raising them.

b) If we want to fix this country, then we need to tell our current generation of “entitlement cunts” to shut the fuck up, we’re taking the reigns back before they really fuck shit up beyond any hope or repair.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Ken September 14, 2011 at 12:46

Good re-direct Vortac! You’re spot-on.
That’s one more good thing about THE SPEARHEAD,
commenters often IMPROVE upon another poster’s point! :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
PeterTheGreat September 14, 2011 at 13:13

Vortac@
“There are also plenty of people who think something good can be built on something thoroughly sick and rotten, and that we already live in the best possible world, Utopia, with only some minor tweaks to be done here and there.”

No, but there are good centers that can rebuild as long as the destruction isn’t total such as traditional Catholics and Mormons, for example.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
mananon September 14, 2011 at 15:03

You say a father cannot be a mother, well I claim ignorance, since I am childless. And I probably always will be.

The real tragedy is, at this time it’s hard for men to be fathers, let alone “play mom”. All the things associated with fatherhood have either been co-opted by governments or are prohibited by governmental/judicial decree; fatherhood is less a natural role and more a regulated, legalised status.

And of course mothers exercise all discretion, backed up by the full force of judicial power. In today’s climate family is a battlefield, upon which human tragedies are played out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
TFH September 14, 2011 at 16:30

While I fully agree with the article, women have become so tainted that if a man wanted to hire an egg donor + IVF + surrogate and had enough money, going it alone as a single dad might just turn out OK for the children.

They will never see their parents divorce (as there is just the father), never be in the middle of a custody battle, and actually have more resources backing their survival, rather than less (since lawyers taking most of it will not be a factor).

So a proper society of two parents works well, but under the modern reality, a single dad going it alone from the start is perhaps a pretty decent avenue all things considered.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Rocco September 14, 2011 at 16:49

@ THF

I agree. In fact, having been there done that, I would recommend surrogacy over natural parenting for men interested in raising a family.

So this is why this article bothers me. If men cannot take on the role of primary parent, how can they raise children on their own?

What does “mother” mean when women have abandoned “motherhood” for public day care and a job and act more like men around children than men do?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price September 14, 2011 at 17:22

@ THF

I agree. In fact, having been there done that, I would recommend surrogacy over natural parenting for men interested in raising a family.

So this is why this article bothers me. If men cannot take on the role of primary parent, how can they raise children on their own?

What does “mother” mean when women have abandoned “motherhood” for public day care and a job and act more like men around children than men do?

-Rocco

Rocco, the point isn’t that men can’t be primary parents; it’s that there is no primary parent. As I see it, people are never going to go with any plan to discard mothers, so our strategy should be to point out that motherhood isn’t enough.

I think men can do a better job than women in raising a child to adulthood. On the balance, I’m pretty sure that the kind of women who abandon their marriages and put their kids through the kind of turmoil so many single moms do are lousier parents than most men. In fact, the old rule where a woman who left the family relinquished the children was based on the idea that a woman who abandoned her marriage was no mother at all, and the kids would be better off with a father than they would with a non-parent.

But ultimately, what I’m thinking is that if men get into a contest with women as to who is the best at “mothering” children, we’re going to lose every time. It’s the wrong fight. What we have to do is stress the benefits of fatherhood and quit trying to compete with women where they have a natural advantage and an endless well of sympathy. I’m writing as a man who put a great deal of effort into taking care of two very small children without any outside help, and I’m glad I did it, but I know that I was compensating for the ineptitude of their mother rather than taking on my natural role.

Of course, a father who is a parent beats a mother who is not every time. But ideally, each should do what they do best, because children do best with one of each.

I know the sacrifices you’ve made from personal experience. I also know they are not in vain. But I don’t want my son – or yours – to have to go through the same.

bruno September 14, 2011 at 17:52

Yes, men cannot “mother” so good, and women cannot “father” so good. That’s ok.
The problem is that the law, the courts, and social services simply put that women are superior parents, and that the mother should get custody.
The result is that child support is for women a goldmine, and for men a catastrophe.
This is blatant discrimination.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
Andy September 14, 2011 at 17:59

Maybe the Spartans had it right,mother has sole possession until the boy is 7 and after that he goes into the agogi.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Rocco September 14, 2011 at 18:21

@ Price

At first I felt out of place being soft and sweet to my son. His mother left when he was 9 months. And before that she would barely hold him, he would not be comforted by her. She made me hire a full time nanny to hold our son. So I did this from when he was very little.

And there was even a time, and I know I’m going to regret this, when man boobs would have come in handy.

But after a few months I realized there is nothing natural at all about being a parent. It’s mainly learned or up to your personality.

I did it all, went to the mommy and me classes, you name it, I went, the mothers hated me. They knew exacly what I meant, proof that a man could do it.

IME see no natural difference between mothers and fathers other than bearing the child and breast feeding and I’ve looked very carefully because I had to do both.

I will go as far as to say that the fathers I know are far more caring and loving to their children than the mothers I know.

Putting labels can have meaning, it’s time for men to step and take back the role we had before the tender years doctrine.

Speaking of the future, we are at a cross roads here. Men either need to step up and make 50/50 work and that means parenting chilren or loose the best chance at parity for men in families for the next 50 years. I hold it against the previous generation for being p@ssybeggers, and don’t want people saying I dropped the ball.

If the mrm officially takes the postion that mothers cannot be replaced (which regretable as the loss of a mother is, we know life goes on) then men will never get parity in custody.

Women have damaged themselves Price. No body listens to us and everyone knows this.

So we want to be the only ones saying how great current mothers are, the ones that are killing us?

Or do you think that we can take the high road? Because that’s been done and we lost.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
tom47 September 14, 2011 at 18:58

Having to establish that fathers are important is a concession to the “best interest of the child” arguement, which we know is really the best interest of the mother argument.
Men don’t need to establish a reason why they are entitiled to a relationship with their children, we have that inherently, simply because they are our children.
About 6% of American children are being raised by single fathers and I don’t see any reason why they should have to defent their right to do so.
The ground does not create the tree, the acorn creates the tree, and the acorn is half mother and half father.There is no other argument needed. What’s ours is ours because it’s ours. The child belongs to the father as much as it belongs to the mother. No justification is needed.
This is just another example of how men are deemed less vauluble than women until they establish some good reason for their existence. It’s self defeating.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Jeb September 14, 2011 at 21:57

Sigh, you divorced fathers complaining about your life reminds me of Vietnam vets returning from the war and complaining that you have to hop along on a prostetic leg.

The “backlash” should not be about “regrowing” your non-existant leg, but rather about convincing other men not to “go to war” for such a ridiculous cause in the first place.

Sadly, the MRM is mostly dominated by Father’s Rights issues, rather than the real rights of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9
Boxer September 14, 2011 at 23:18

While I fully agree with the article, women have become so tainted that if a man wanted to hire an egg donor + IVF + surrogate and had enough money, going it alone as a single dad might just turn out OK for the children.

I have actually thought about this quite seriously. By the time I am 45 or 50, if I’m in good health, I am guessing it will be not nearly so uncommon, either.

Genetic selection for desirable traits (I’d rather have a son, dark hair, etc.) an egg donated by a white chick, and a stable contract with a willing, healthy surrogate in a society where this is enforceable. A couple of those things are difficult now… maybe not in 10-30 years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Scattered September 15, 2011 at 01:30

I have no interest in children, I assume this is the case for most young single men. If men remain single I do not think this changes. This is why surrogacy for men will not take off.

Men desire sex which I think is the initial step toward a devoted father.

Sex > attachment > commitment > children > fatherhood

Single men won’t use surrogacy because even though they might be fond of the idea of children it is simply nothing like the hormonal desperation that women experience. Primarily they want sex and maybe a relationship (attachment).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
greyghost September 15, 2011 at 02:44

I like Tom47′s take on this one. the answer to the question is “BECAUSE I”M THEIR FATHER” period.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
bruno September 15, 2011 at 02:47

@ Jeb
“The “backlash” should not be about “regrowing” your non-existant leg, but rather about convincing other men not to “go to war” for such a ridiculous cause in the first place.”

Yes.
Most men love their children so much, that they cannot say the truth: if they had known before how it would turn out (the mother using the children to hurt and destroy the father, and make his life hell), they would never have agreed to have children in the first place.

Having children, and having a hateful ex, makes your life very complicated.

The only reaction a man then gets is: “Well, you should have thought about that before.”

And that’s exactly the only thing a young man can do: think very very hard before getting married, have children, or live together with a woman.
The chance for a bad outcome is much too big.
So the only logical conclusion a man can draw is: I should not do it. It is too dangerous.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Ivo Vos September 15, 2011 at 05:46

Excellent observation Welmer. Here are my two cents. If fathers and mothers are spending their time on ‘anything you can do I can do better’ games it generally ends up being not only a complete waste of time, it’s also a very bad example for the children. Although children sometimes like to play that game endlessly while growing up as part of their maturing. There seems to be, in general, a basic difference between mothering and fathering in the way we navigate the world around us and what we like to teach our children about how to accomplish this. I would like to add that I don’t think it has to do with difference in skills as such but the way we use these while living our lives, or in other words ‘navigating the world’. Feminists like to point out that, in general, there are no basic differences in the level of skills between men and women, or in this case between fathers and mothers. Except for skills which require a certain amount of physical strength (and there are quite a lot of them, although their importance is diminishing in our mechanized and automated world) I agree with this idea. When we leave out the differences based on differences in physical strength we often talk about skills that rely on our cognition and we might expect no basic differences there. As a species which has evolved with this speciality we might expect this to be reproduced as part of our species, not as part of sexual differences. It would have been very strange that this very human ‘feature’ would be differently present in men and women while at the same time both are required to reproduce humans. In her recent publication ‘Delusions of Gender’, the feminist cognitive neuroscientist Cordelia Fine reports that in laboratory circumstances hardly any difference can be found between men and women when it comes to skills based on cognition. We might ask ourselves whether we seriously would have expected any big differences at all under those circumstances. Cognitive skills are learned or socialized ways of using our cognition.
The differences between men and women, and by implication between fathers and mothers, are not to be found in the trained usage of our cognition and measuring the outcome of this in laboratory circumstances but in the way we use these skills or are willing to spend time and energy in acquiring them at all. As has been pointed out over and over again on this forum, one of the basic differences is the way we deal with risks. Or in other words how we cope with anxiety and fear. Basically women are risk-avoiders and men are risk-researchers. In hindsight, we can come up with some very good reasons for this difference. As reproducers of life as a viable form women are focussed on reproducing this viable form after it has demonstrated it’s viability. After – and not before – the viability is demonstrated life will not jeopardize it’s acquired knowledge by taking unnecessary risks. It has been difficult enough to produce, maintain and evolve life over billions of years. We don’t expect women to take unnecessary risks by speeding at 200 miles on the highway with the youngsters in the backseat. On the other hand, we normally are not surprised at all if men are speeding on the highway, as long as they don’t take the youngsters in the backseat with them. Or if they excel at parking their cars in a spectacular way against a tree – vertically. Men are risk-researchers. And life has bestowed upon us this brilliant scheme how to maintain the knowledge of what is viable enough to reproduce while at the same time trying out unknown and thereby risk-laden possibilities by having created sexual reproduction. I’m inclined to say that we humans never could have come up with such a magnificent scheme for it’s own evolution.
This basic difference is, as might be expected, amplified – that is to say we humans tend to make it a big issue in our minds – in society. The difference is further socialized in all kinds of ways and we might as well differentiate cultures along a risk-avoiding vs risk-researching line. Which translates today’s Western cultures into the risk-avoiding type and thereby creating a serious problem when it comes to necessary changes in order to avoid stagnation and decline as we can witness today. But that’s another story.
When it comes to differences in the role of mothers and fathers it generally is up to the fathers to learn children how to navigate in a world full of risks. Mothers are generally busy with re-establishing a world that is safe enough – and cozy – for a child to live in. But, whether we like it or not, the world poses all sorts of risks and uncertainties and in order to be able to act on your own without the constant steering of parents you have to develop ways to cope with this. Fathers – or males in general- excel as risk-researchers. They don’t exactly excel at risk-avoiding, which makes it difficult or impossible to act as such and act as a comforter at the same time. More over, it would be highly confusing for a child seeking either comfort or new adventures in the world to first find out in what kind of mode – if there could be such a ‘skill’ – the parent is in order to start the seeked-after communication. Children need a bit more certainty when it comes to what to expect of their parents.
So it’s up to the fathers to learn their children to navigate their future world and all it’s uncertainties and risks, experiencing anxiety, fear and excitement and learn what it is that makes us humans on the other side of the hill where the grass is supposedly greener but may be more yellow. To teach them how to use our acquired knowledge – written in our history and as our history – without having to walk the dead-end streets, like today’s feminism, neo-liberalism or communism (to state my personal political preferences), or paths leading to nowhere over and over again. To use our skills to become a risk-explorer instead of constantly trying to avoid any risks, real or imaginary. And, lest I forget, that there are real differences in the way you can approach this, depending on whether your are a girl or a boy.
I think that in today’s world which faces new uncertainties and challenges we are in greater need to enhance the unique role of the father in the upbringing of our children. As today’s developments painfully points out to us, the worst we can do is trying to hide in our self-proclaimed cocoons of predictability and dreamed-up certainties while at the same time making a mess out of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Jaego Scorzne September 15, 2011 at 09:07

Women create life! Yeah right, all by themselves. It’s just the theological justification for alot of “women and children” Feminism. The sinking of Titanic set the stage for the 20th century, where women and children got to go to the half empty lifeboats while men stayed behind to die. With one exception (unsinkable Molly Brown), the women refused to row back to save men perishing in the freezing water.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Ivo Vos September 15, 2011 at 10:46

@Jaeogo
My text reads : ” …both are required to reproduce humans.” Which is not exactly the same as stating that women create life all by themselves. I would like to add, on the contrary. If that would be the case in today’s society I suppose society would come to a complete standstill. It would be a dead-end street. We, as a life form, are probably way to complex to rely on molecular variations for our survival. And we are at this moment not really able to create viable human life ‘out of a tube’. Maybe we never will.
As for the Titanic, the refusal of die-hard feminists to take what happened on the Titanic (and an overwhelming amount of other similar instances in the past) into account speaks volumes about their arrogance and denial of the simple truth that women alone are not sufficient to maintain life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
P diddy September 15, 2011 at 11:59

Mothers are more important in rearing until age 8-10 or so, and then the father becomes more important in guiding the child towards success in life. It’s the natural order.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Geography Bee Finalist himself September 15, 2011 at 14:39

The article appears to be true about mothers supposedly being better equipped for children ages 0-9, where emotional communication and a reduced need for objectivity plays a larger role, and fathers supposedly being better equipped for children ages 9 and beyond where objectivity and ability to put aside biases should play a stratospherically larger role.

What about strong traits and weak traits that could conceivably be found in either or both parents, with no way of knowing whether or not the trait in question tends to be more common in mothers or fathers?

Self-absorption (one of my mother’s negative traits) and difficulty in displaying/outright refusal to display appreciation of others’ efforts (one of my father’s negative traits) are exceptionally corrosive traits in any individual. To be fair to them, as a childless individual I am somewhat withdrawn, overprotective, and have trouble making myself understood, three things that would not do any hypothetical offspring any favors.

Self-absorption sends me the message that unless I fall under the umbrella of my mother’s interests, at least temporarily, I am a massive inconvenience/regret/liability.

Refusal to display appreciation for others’ efforts leads me to want to see my own father fail to meet someone else’s expectations, and be sanctioned accordingly, especially since I do not have the option in this situation of having schadenfreude with my own father.

A withdrawn nature would only help offspring if while being withdrawn I was focused on the offspring. Overprotection blows up in everyone’s faces, children and parents alike. As far as making myself understood, some things require detail, some do not; I can usually make myself better understood typing online than while speaking. I happen to have a monotone voice which is almost universally derided as a bad thing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jean Valjean September 15, 2011 at 16:31

The truth is that men, in general, make inferior mothers. Men can care for infants and small children in a pinch, but they aren’t very well suited to it. Mothering comes to a man about as well as fixing cars does to most women, which is to say it’s a forced task. When an infant comes into a man’s family, he will feel a great deal of tenderness for the child, he will be protective of it, and he will go to work ensuring its safety. However, he doesn’t understand the baby’s vocalizations as well as women, the nonverbal communication eludes him, he cannot nurse, and he is usually clumsier with the details of cleaning, dressing and feeding the child. With infants and small children, emotional communication is standard, so women’s tendency to think with their feelings is an advantage in dealing with them.

This is a load of shit. Based entirely on subjective opinion.

All of this is learned behavior. Give a man the task of raising a child and free him from the burden of being financially exploited by a wife and he can do just as good if not better job of meeting the needs of his children.

I stopped reading your crap opinion after this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7
Scattered September 16, 2011 at 01:19

“Mothers are more important in rearing until age 8-10 or so, and then the father becomes more important in guiding the child towards success in life. It’s the natural order.”

Try four, at least for sons. Basically the moment a child can walk, talk and learn a fathers role becomes critical. The mother is still important for support though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Gorbachev September 18, 2011 at 08:42

This was genius.

Thank you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price September 18, 2011 at 23:07

This is a load of shit. Based entirely on subjective opinion.

-Jean Valjean

Hmm, TRP2 activation here?

:)

harley February 2, 2013 at 17:56

guys/men can be a mouther /mom/mum/mommy as the deffinition of maternal is the inbouran desire to protect ones own offspring where as father is tha authorty figure ,but in some societys the mothers are the authorty figures so that contradicts the term father if the father is “male” but then what if ure “male” but has a maternal inctinct nat a paternal then could mommy/mom/mum nat be applicable and then wat about a transgendered person boran “male” but fill “female” or boran “female” but wanting to be m
“male ‘ wat should they be mother or father just sumthing to think about

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Sara June 12, 2013 at 19:50

Excellent article. Men should be valued for their manliness, not their womanliness. Unfortunately there are too many fathers qho want to be the mothers as well because they dont feel like they are valued as men so, in order to be valued as something, they try to be valued as mothers. Its too bad they feel this way. Its a demasculinization of our society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Sara June 12, 2013 at 19:58

Men who dont feel good about themselves feel the need to compete with women. Maybe if the woman had more respect for mens contributions, men wouldnt feel that way?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
nuclearradio December 14, 2013 at 21:14

I call bullshit. The quality of parenting depends on the quality of the parent. I agree that having a mother is very important, but if the woman is trash (i.e. most western women), then the man must do his job and step up. I am an advocate for single fatherhood. It takes a man to admit he wants a family, and go out and gets it, leaving the moral decrepitude and failure of the western woman to stew in her self-important fluids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Beatrox December 18, 2013 at 09:27

Nuclearradio’s comment is equal to nuclear waste. He calls most western women trash. OMG! Talk about misogyny. What a blanket statement. If Nuclearradio doesn’t already live in a Middle Eastern country where the clitoridectomizing of young females is a right that man can impose upon women, he should move. Or he should move to any any country where females have no human rights. A “feeling” that I get from many of these emails and the article is that these writers are overtly or covertly bitter to some degree. There are who men want to chase tail in their youth, and many, thereafter; they want sexy, beautiful, trophy wives and girlfriends to show off to other men or for their own validation as virile and/or accomplished men. But if a woman goes with a man for money or sex, she’s deemed trash. Geez. Really? You’re made for each other.

Both fathers and mothers can be good or bad parents. None of this conversation should be about gender at all. We all CHOSE those partners. The conversation should be about each and every one of us just taking responsibility for our progeny and for each and every one to STOP finger pointing. Just each one, mom or dad, step up and take care of the kids. Don’t try to be the mother if your the father and don’t try to be the father if your the mother. And of course the best scenery is both parents together. But the most important thing is to take the financial responsibility of your children, do the work and not whine about it and not whine about the opposing parent. Because that is what truly loving them is. That is what they need and want. Throw out the bitterness and blame. We made our beds. Oh well. We all chose those partners. Now move on with real love with respect and grace. So basically, shut up. Less words. More love.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 5 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: