Reflecting on Gender Discourse Analysis
I always love a good debate about Gender Rights, and since I've just completeted a Critical Linguistics module, and having re-read Fairclough, I will attempt to be as linguistical and social as possible. With regards to statements made by local political leaders in the 1980's that Women should be responsible for maintaining the family unit, the central assumption is rooted in a very classical "Asian" Ideology, free of the feminist emancipation of the West that were taking roots then and concretized now. As far as I can remember, that was one of the few statements they did regret in later speeches and interviews, and perhaps also the entire doctrine of social engineering, i.e the graduate mother saga, enforced sterilization by consent(!!!), etc. However, they are also adamant that they believe strongly in that view that Women, historically, have more important roles in the family. In view of the classical, some say natural, order of the family, the wife acts as the caregiver and the husband as the breadwinner. Considering the physical, mostly (heh), advantage of the males in agrarian and early industrial economies, that was the appropriate order. After the Industrial Revolution, and with the Agricultural Revolution, the Machination of Production, Socialism, Universal Suffrage, and other crucial paradigm shifts in the social order, the social practice and the order of discourse should adequately reflect the new paradigms. However, as Fairclough would put it, the existence of that natural order, and by the dominant force, deny the change in discourse and social practice, while trying to maintain their present ideology which is archaic and contradictory to the new paradigms and situations. Negotiation by consent begins to fall apart, and sides resisting and propagating it begin to emerge, and views begin to become extreme and at times, absurd, due to the need to differentiate themselves. Any remark made in support by either camps will be shot down and ridiculed, as feminists will claim the supreme defence of patriarchy and domination, while chauvinists will claim the defence of history and biological power. Is there a natural order? Is everything a result of patriarchy? Is there imaginary domination? Does Biology supercede all? There is no clear or easy answer, but a defence against natural and sweeping defences needs to take place. Take the men, since I am unfortunately and fortunately one, for example. Men need to reflect social changes in their discourse, and realize that the good old days are over, and that there is no such thing as a god-given right to dominate and propagate. Women, on the other hand, need to think about the situation, measure it, and analyze it before jumping to conclusions (though hardcore feminist will say that analysis is a patriarchal construct, but what better system is there to offer?), and mostly, not abuse their "dominated" status. Well, since it seems that I offer more advice to women than men, I appear to be propagating a male ideology. But women, or wimmin, or whatever feminists choose to label it nowadays, have the greater part to gain from such changes, and they must realize social order and ideologies are far more difficult to change than to reinforce. Ok, I am beginning to sound preachy...Let me move on.
The assumptions our political leaders made is a reflection of their ideology, and a reflection of their generation's ideology, and probably reinforced by the many evidences that they had experienced: that a good family is one that needs a strong caretaking force in the home, which has somewhat been empirically proven. That force could be Male, and Feminists are right to say that Males must take on the responsibility in the home sphere. Unfortunately, and not an excuse, Men, by and large, are terrible at home. Besides the few grunts made each day by fathers, little communication seem to take place in early-mid 20th Century homes between father and child, or husband and wife for that matter. Feminist Linguist Deborah Tannen states that Males, however, are able to be eloquent and speak a lot in formal situations, and tend to use language to establish authority and for social gains, which I think is already presumed present and thus not necessary to propagate in the family setting. Interestingly, the Patriach model can be observed to be generally dissipating in the modern family, with males communicating by and large more with their children, and hopefully, their spouses. The "caring father" image is now more acceptable, and fathers are now "allowed" to play and show affection for the children in public, when previously, it was usually seen as a sign of weakness, especially in pre-20th Century Europe (reflected in much literature and biographies of from that era). The amount of discourse is one thing, but the manifestation of discourse is still another. Baby Step: More words. Next Step: Better words. I totally detest "baby shows" on TV as they are so contrived and "acted", but the images and words are in great contrast to earlier ages in TV and photos, where the Male is distant, and adopts a different posture and demeanour. Of course the factors of increasing exposure cannot be ruled out, but the frequency in which you see the fathers cradling their children, and the father speaking affectionately, even though contrived at times, is frighteningly unmistakable. Being a father is now cool. Sigh. The uncoolest thing in the world in a man's mind is now fashionable and nice. Father talk columns are now appearing in most major newspapers, while parenting books for Fathers, which would have sold zero copies pre-1920's, are bestsellers. Men and Women, Husband-Wife, Boyfriend-Girlfriend communication books are bestsellers by miles, and every book of such genre, crappy or well-written, appear to be read by someone someplace for some reason. And it is not just females who are reading or buying it. Men, though secretly, buy it and read it in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I read Tannen's "You Just Don't Understand: women and men in conversation" secretly in a library, with books by Foucault and Marx strewn on the table. Heh. It was cute, and enlightening to a large extent, though I did have many contentions from an academic point-of-view. When my ex-girlfriend forced me to read "Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus" to salvage our relationship, she became my ex after I finished the book. Heh. True. Men are hopeless creatures, and Women are hopeful ones. Sweeping statement, but in the New World Order, the converse is happening. When balance for a Utopian society would be two sets of hopeful beings, the increasing frustration of hopeful women at their hopeless men is causing a rapid decline into Hopeless Women and Hopeless, though learning to be Hopeful, Men. Hope is much quicker lost than gained, so it seems. Increasingly acrimonious discourse between both parties seems to reflect this. Lawsuits filed, divorce made, controversies stirred, relationships ended as Idiotic Men meet Frustrated Women. Politicians' past statements reflect that of the Idiotic Men (hope I am not liable for libel here!), which was the status quo in their generation, and perhaps during the time of the utterance (1984, nice!). The utterance was reflective, yet almost doctrinal to the army of Idiotic Men, and acknowledged by the less Frustrated Women. The discourse uses guilt as a tool to manufacture consent, and uses their "authority" to sanctify that Ideology and maintain it among the dominant class (Men). Such weight did their words carry that even the most-educated of Men use that to justify their reactions towards their wives' alleged failings in the home. Feminists were right, Women were unfairly thrown two Herculean tasks to fulfill. Given the finite resources such as Time, Attention and Energy, Women usually made the sacrifice. The status quo of the dominant male is reinforced through this discourse and subsequent social actions. However, changes in the social, economic and political landscape have resulted in changes in this order. The lure of the dollar, and the increasing importance of Consumerism, a hallmark of capitalist society, have attracted the female workforce, and the corresponding rise of women in authority. All the "bosses" I've had, at Media agencies and the schools I've taught, are females, an unlikely phenomenon a generation ago. While the "glass ceiling" exists, it is merely reflective of the absence of qualified women in the age-group of the high-powered class that so few women rise to the top. With the increased number of women in the workforce, and taking on leadership positions, women have begun to break many glass-ceilings, and will break many more. I am naive, I guess. But statistically, and logically, it makes sense, and the position of women in society will only continue to rise, and continue to meet resistance from dominant ideologies, untill an equilibrium takes over, and all efforts in social practice and discourse will then lend itself to maintaining that equilibrium as the status quo, while manufacturing consent among the new resistance against that equilibrium from groups that are displaced.
Lastly, I would like to comment on a statement made that "[the] ability to care for the family, like having a career is learned – not something intrinsically found in either men or women". It is well-phrased, and has much truth in it. Unfortunately, Hopeless Men that we are, we have not had the opportunity to "learn" how to care for the family in discoursal terms, and in practice. Much of social learning takes place through role-playing and modelling, if you were to believe social scientists. Men in my unfortunate generation are thrust into that parenting role when they've had rather rubbish models to look up to. One study by Jane Sunderland was of particular interest to me, in the sense that Girls did not mind "pretending to be boys" to achieve social gains, but Boys, on the other hand, will never do the converse. Men of my generation, and I believe those before mine, were nurtured by their mothers but model themselves after their fathers. When as kids, we play silly games pretending to be in some occupation or tasks, Boys, and many a times, girls, will take on their fathers' role, and highly unlikely to take on their mothers' (though both of my parents were Police Officers, I always chose the more "macho" type of cop that my Dad was rather than a thinking type like my Mum's). Fortunately, I never became a Cop (else the streets will be full of confused policemen and grateful criminals), but I took on my mother's first occupation, a teacher. Strange, isn't it? I digress. Reforming Hopeless Men of my generation are caught in a mire, as we have no models to look up to, have never role-played the scenario, and have been enlightened in equal ownership of the home, yet confused by remarks made by figures in authority such as Politicians, Philosophers, and religious Leaders. Such paths to take and choices to make are heavily influenced by the conflicting and contrasting discourse we Hopeless Men receive each day. The media preaches equality in theory, but demonstrates female subjugation in many of its programs and advertising. Our female friends and family remind and warn us to treat them with equal respect, but our male friends and family remind and warn us that we, historically, have been superior and should be superior. The government sings a different tune in different age, other governments sing different tunes we cannot relate. Woe it is to be a man caught in such transition! Woe it is to be a woman fighting in this transition! The point is, no one has it easy, and no one is holier than thou. Is this the equilibrium I was talking about? Perhaps, but unlikely.
The mainstreaming of feminist discourse (the less biting and more sane ones, compared to some of the underground feminist publications I've read), and the mainstreaming of attitude towards women in society have occured simultaneously. Some feminists focus on the discourse in the hope of shaping attitude, while others focus on the attitude in the hope of shaping discourse. The final aim is to readjust social reality, and to see that the social practices reflect the social reality. Discourse reality, at times, can exist independently from social practices, especially at the institutional and individual level. Hardcore feminists will always mention "Patriarchy" and "Oppression" at every instance and era, while along the continuum, many feminists and chauvinists will drop out at different stage to declare "equality" and "freedom". Issues of society is embedded within our discourse only as far as we perceive that social reality to be true and sacrosanct. Everyone seeks to pursue a Utopian ideal, and the dominant will seek greater dominance, while the dominated will seek greater equality first, then dominance and then greater dominance. Negotiation will take place perpetually, with victories won and lost, presented and forfeited. Critical and Left-Wing papers were banned in most countries during the rise or threat of Communism. Critical and Left-Wing papers have the highest circulation and readership across Europe today, with most countries adopting a Socialist Democracy in their political doctrines and discourse. Marx's contribution, as well as post-Marxist thinkers, cannot be discounted. His recognition of the class struggles resulted in a gradual acknowledgement of workers' rights and equality for all. Practitioners such as Stalin screwed it up, and there was skepticism and fear. But it raised an understanding and acknowledgement that would be unprecedented without his analysis. Similarly, Feminist "Marxes" have risen up to report their observations and analysis, and the general public have stood up to listen to their preachings. They have awaken from the dead. Some practitioners of feminist ideologies have messed it up, giving the chauvinists ammunition to shoot it down. Skepticism and Fear creep into the minds of the neutrals or the unassociated. When the dust settles, the primary truth in Feminism would arise to become an acknowledged and accepted truth. Some will bicker, just as anti-Marxist do, but they cannot fail but acknowledge the contributions in the shifting landscapes of the Social Desert. This is the victory for the Feminist, just as it had been for Marx, lying in his grave glad that the world has changed for the better from his contributions. Again, I am naive, eulogizing, and displaying my biased Marxist Ideologies (this posting is going to get me arrested and charged many times over!). But there are undeniable truths that you may disagree in minute forms, but you would have to acknowledge in the greater whole of reality. Again, I digress. My apologies. Perhaps reading too much Fairclough is not a good thing.
In our observations of social and discourse reality as well as it practices, I am sure we can intuitively gather the shifts in gender power. Women no longer stay silent, and while Media has been slow to catch on, discourse about media, published by media and hallowed social institutions such as government and universities, have increasingly placed gender portrayal and ideologies among the forefront of its concerns. Using CDA in its most nitpicking form to challenge media would create a politically-correct but attitudinally wrong media. Using CDA to remind media to renegotiate its ideologies, to reflect social changes, will foster an attitudinal change in this most-powerful and patriachal patron of society. Lip service is not the desire of Feminists and Critical Discourse Analysts, though they sometimes appear to be heading myopically into that direction. The frustration of Feminists and Linguists comes from Lip Service, and the absence of Attitudinal Change. Correct Discourse means little, and proponents of Gender rights agree. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that Language shapes reality is usually accepted in its weak form, and most, if not all, common people or those with vested interest would prefer reality over language any day. CDA have picked on lots of examples from Media, and justifiably so as the role of Media as the Fourth, and perhaps most important as Hobbes puts it, Estate is guarding and promoting the rights of the citizens. Like the sad Hopeless Men, Media is changing. Once unprintables have been printed, once taboos have been commonplace. The media needs reminders time to time to crush its perceptions of invincibility, but more importantly, it needs to be bestowed faith in its sanity that it will choose to do the right thing and reflect the real social reality. The Socially-responsible press is a pipe dream, just as the Libertarian Press is under siege from Economic interests of a capitalist society. But discourse, images, programs, themes, doctrines, and the establishment, in Media have changed so much so that a bigot in deep freeze since the mid-19th Century would drop his head in disbelief after sitting through 24 hours of TV-surfing. Media has changed with the times, and it is the times that must be changed, not only the media. Discourse in the media, as Fairclough has theorized, is the favoured vehicle of Ideology in the Modern Mass Media Age. The opacity of past discourse is the cause of the propagation of present ideologies, and as Bordieu's Paradox reminds us that "It is because subjects do not, strictly speaking, know what they are doing that what they do have more meaing than they know". The media is not only an instrument of ideology, but a subject as well. With greater clarity, through greater observations of society, the past ideologies that it formerly legitimizes and reinforces begin to lost its meaning, and over time, fade into a new unconsciousness brought about by another dominant force, which likely would be gender equality as it now beginning to carry that ideology commonsensically in its discourse while being greatly conscious of the discourse of patriarchy amongst its practitioners. PHHHHHEWWWW.... the end!
The assumptions our political leaders made is a reflection of their ideology, and a reflection of their generation's ideology, and probably reinforced by the many evidences that they had experienced: that a good family is one that needs a strong caretaking force in the home, which has somewhat been empirically proven. That force could be Male, and Feminists are right to say that Males must take on the responsibility in the home sphere. Unfortunately, and not an excuse, Men, by and large, are terrible at home. Besides the few grunts made each day by fathers, little communication seem to take place in early-mid 20th Century homes between father and child, or husband and wife for that matter. Feminist Linguist Deborah Tannen states that Males, however, are able to be eloquent and speak a lot in formal situations, and tend to use language to establish authority and for social gains, which I think is already presumed present and thus not necessary to propagate in the family setting. Interestingly, the Patriach model can be observed to be generally dissipating in the modern family, with males communicating by and large more with their children, and hopefully, their spouses. The "caring father" image is now more acceptable, and fathers are now "allowed" to play and show affection for the children in public, when previously, it was usually seen as a sign of weakness, especially in pre-20th Century Europe (reflected in much literature and biographies of from that era). The amount of discourse is one thing, but the manifestation of discourse is still another. Baby Step: More words. Next Step: Better words. I totally detest "baby shows" on TV as they are so contrived and "acted", but the images and words are in great contrast to earlier ages in TV and photos, where the Male is distant, and adopts a different posture and demeanour. Of course the factors of increasing exposure cannot be ruled out, but the frequency in which you see the fathers cradling their children, and the father speaking affectionately, even though contrived at times, is frighteningly unmistakable. Being a father is now cool. Sigh. The uncoolest thing in the world in a man's mind is now fashionable and nice. Father talk columns are now appearing in most major newspapers, while parenting books for Fathers, which would have sold zero copies pre-1920's, are bestsellers. Men and Women, Husband-Wife, Boyfriend-Girlfriend communication books are bestsellers by miles, and every book of such genre, crappy or well-written, appear to be read by someone someplace for some reason. And it is not just females who are reading or buying it. Men, though secretly, buy it and read it in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I read Tannen's "You Just Don't Understand: women and men in conversation" secretly in a library, with books by Foucault and Marx strewn on the table. Heh. It was cute, and enlightening to a large extent, though I did have many contentions from an academic point-of-view. When my ex-girlfriend forced me to read "Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus" to salvage our relationship, she became my ex after I finished the book. Heh. True. Men are hopeless creatures, and Women are hopeful ones. Sweeping statement, but in the New World Order, the converse is happening. When balance for a Utopian society would be two sets of hopeful beings, the increasing frustration of hopeful women at their hopeless men is causing a rapid decline into Hopeless Women and Hopeless, though learning to be Hopeful, Men. Hope is much quicker lost than gained, so it seems. Increasingly acrimonious discourse between both parties seems to reflect this. Lawsuits filed, divorce made, controversies stirred, relationships ended as Idiotic Men meet Frustrated Women. Politicians' past statements reflect that of the Idiotic Men (hope I am not liable for libel here!), which was the status quo in their generation, and perhaps during the time of the utterance (1984, nice!). The utterance was reflective, yet almost doctrinal to the army of Idiotic Men, and acknowledged by the less Frustrated Women. The discourse uses guilt as a tool to manufacture consent, and uses their "authority" to sanctify that Ideology and maintain it among the dominant class (Men). Such weight did their words carry that even the most-educated of Men use that to justify their reactions towards their wives' alleged failings in the home. Feminists were right, Women were unfairly thrown two Herculean tasks to fulfill. Given the finite resources such as Time, Attention and Energy, Women usually made the sacrifice. The status quo of the dominant male is reinforced through this discourse and subsequent social actions. However, changes in the social, economic and political landscape have resulted in changes in this order. The lure of the dollar, and the increasing importance of Consumerism, a hallmark of capitalist society, have attracted the female workforce, and the corresponding rise of women in authority. All the "bosses" I've had, at Media agencies and the schools I've taught, are females, an unlikely phenomenon a generation ago. While the "glass ceiling" exists, it is merely reflective of the absence of qualified women in the age-group of the high-powered class that so few women rise to the top. With the increased number of women in the workforce, and taking on leadership positions, women have begun to break many glass-ceilings, and will break many more. I am naive, I guess. But statistically, and logically, it makes sense, and the position of women in society will only continue to rise, and continue to meet resistance from dominant ideologies, untill an equilibrium takes over, and all efforts in social practice and discourse will then lend itself to maintaining that equilibrium as the status quo, while manufacturing consent among the new resistance against that equilibrium from groups that are displaced.
Lastly, I would like to comment on a statement made that "[the] ability to care for the family, like having a career is learned – not something intrinsically found in either men or women". It is well-phrased, and has much truth in it. Unfortunately, Hopeless Men that we are, we have not had the opportunity to "learn" how to care for the family in discoursal terms, and in practice. Much of social learning takes place through role-playing and modelling, if you were to believe social scientists. Men in my unfortunate generation are thrust into that parenting role when they've had rather rubbish models to look up to. One study by Jane Sunderland was of particular interest to me, in the sense that Girls did not mind "pretending to be boys" to achieve social gains, but Boys, on the other hand, will never do the converse. Men of my generation, and I believe those before mine, were nurtured by their mothers but model themselves after their fathers. When as kids, we play silly games pretending to be in some occupation or tasks, Boys, and many a times, girls, will take on their fathers' role, and highly unlikely to take on their mothers' (though both of my parents were Police Officers, I always chose the more "macho" type of cop that my Dad was rather than a thinking type like my Mum's). Fortunately, I never became a Cop (else the streets will be full of confused policemen and grateful criminals), but I took on my mother's first occupation, a teacher. Strange, isn't it? I digress. Reforming Hopeless Men of my generation are caught in a mire, as we have no models to look up to, have never role-played the scenario, and have been enlightened in equal ownership of the home, yet confused by remarks made by figures in authority such as Politicians, Philosophers, and religious Leaders. Such paths to take and choices to make are heavily influenced by the conflicting and contrasting discourse we Hopeless Men receive each day. The media preaches equality in theory, but demonstrates female subjugation in many of its programs and advertising. Our female friends and family remind and warn us to treat them with equal respect, but our male friends and family remind and warn us that we, historically, have been superior and should be superior. The government sings a different tune in different age, other governments sing different tunes we cannot relate. Woe it is to be a man caught in such transition! Woe it is to be a woman fighting in this transition! The point is, no one has it easy, and no one is holier than thou. Is this the equilibrium I was talking about? Perhaps, but unlikely.
The mainstreaming of feminist discourse (the less biting and more sane ones, compared to some of the underground feminist publications I've read), and the mainstreaming of attitude towards women in society have occured simultaneously. Some feminists focus on the discourse in the hope of shaping attitude, while others focus on the attitude in the hope of shaping discourse. The final aim is to readjust social reality, and to see that the social practices reflect the social reality. Discourse reality, at times, can exist independently from social practices, especially at the institutional and individual level. Hardcore feminists will always mention "Patriarchy" and "Oppression" at every instance and era, while along the continuum, many feminists and chauvinists will drop out at different stage to declare "equality" and "freedom". Issues of society is embedded within our discourse only as far as we perceive that social reality to be true and sacrosanct. Everyone seeks to pursue a Utopian ideal, and the dominant will seek greater dominance, while the dominated will seek greater equality first, then dominance and then greater dominance. Negotiation will take place perpetually, with victories won and lost, presented and forfeited. Critical and Left-Wing papers were banned in most countries during the rise or threat of Communism. Critical and Left-Wing papers have the highest circulation and readership across Europe today, with most countries adopting a Socialist Democracy in their political doctrines and discourse. Marx's contribution, as well as post-Marxist thinkers, cannot be discounted. His recognition of the class struggles resulted in a gradual acknowledgement of workers' rights and equality for all. Practitioners such as Stalin screwed it up, and there was skepticism and fear. But it raised an understanding and acknowledgement that would be unprecedented without his analysis. Similarly, Feminist "Marxes" have risen up to report their observations and analysis, and the general public have stood up to listen to their preachings. They have awaken from the dead. Some practitioners of feminist ideologies have messed it up, giving the chauvinists ammunition to shoot it down. Skepticism and Fear creep into the minds of the neutrals or the unassociated. When the dust settles, the primary truth in Feminism would arise to become an acknowledged and accepted truth. Some will bicker, just as anti-Marxist do, but they cannot fail but acknowledge the contributions in the shifting landscapes of the Social Desert. This is the victory for the Feminist, just as it had been for Marx, lying in his grave glad that the world has changed for the better from his contributions. Again, I am naive, eulogizing, and displaying my biased Marxist Ideologies (this posting is going to get me arrested and charged many times over!). But there are undeniable truths that you may disagree in minute forms, but you would have to acknowledge in the greater whole of reality. Again, I digress. My apologies. Perhaps reading too much Fairclough is not a good thing.
In our observations of social and discourse reality as well as it practices, I am sure we can intuitively gather the shifts in gender power. Women no longer stay silent, and while Media has been slow to catch on, discourse about media, published by media and hallowed social institutions such as government and universities, have increasingly placed gender portrayal and ideologies among the forefront of its concerns. Using CDA in its most nitpicking form to challenge media would create a politically-correct but attitudinally wrong media. Using CDA to remind media to renegotiate its ideologies, to reflect social changes, will foster an attitudinal change in this most-powerful and patriachal patron of society. Lip service is not the desire of Feminists and Critical Discourse Analysts, though they sometimes appear to be heading myopically into that direction. The frustration of Feminists and Linguists comes from Lip Service, and the absence of Attitudinal Change. Correct Discourse means little, and proponents of Gender rights agree. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that Language shapes reality is usually accepted in its weak form, and most, if not all, common people or those with vested interest would prefer reality over language any day. CDA have picked on lots of examples from Media, and justifiably so as the role of Media as the Fourth, and perhaps most important as Hobbes puts it, Estate is guarding and promoting the rights of the citizens. Like the sad Hopeless Men, Media is changing. Once unprintables have been printed, once taboos have been commonplace. The media needs reminders time to time to crush its perceptions of invincibility, but more importantly, it needs to be bestowed faith in its sanity that it will choose to do the right thing and reflect the real social reality. The Socially-responsible press is a pipe dream, just as the Libertarian Press is under siege from Economic interests of a capitalist society. But discourse, images, programs, themes, doctrines, and the establishment, in Media have changed so much so that a bigot in deep freeze since the mid-19th Century would drop his head in disbelief after sitting through 24 hours of TV-surfing. Media has changed with the times, and it is the times that must be changed, not only the media. Discourse in the media, as Fairclough has theorized, is the favoured vehicle of Ideology in the Modern Mass Media Age. The opacity of past discourse is the cause of the propagation of present ideologies, and as Bordieu's Paradox reminds us that "It is because subjects do not, strictly speaking, know what they are doing that what they do have more meaing than they know". The media is not only an instrument of ideology, but a subject as well. With greater clarity, through greater observations of society, the past ideologies that it formerly legitimizes and reinforces begin to lost its meaning, and over time, fade into a new unconsciousness brought about by another dominant force, which likely would be gender equality as it now beginning to carry that ideology commonsensically in its discourse while being greatly conscious of the discourse of patriarchy amongst its practitioners. PHHHHHEWWWW.... the end!
posted by Tormented genius at 8:29 AM
0 comments
