Tim Lott, the men’s rights movement’s very own Polly Filler

Quick magazine idea: the feminist version of Private Eye. Like the sexist one, only not sexist, and hence far more aware of the misogyny that runs through politics and the media (sexist Private Eye included). I’ve already planned the reversioning of several features: Rod Liddle would provide a model for the new Glenda Slagg, the OBN would be joined by the MBE (Mansplaining Badge of Excellence), as well as Lookalikes we’d have Sexist-a-likes, Pseuds’ Corner would be joined by Rape Apology Circle (£10 for the most topical submissions, £15 for any starting with the phrase “we all agree rape is an abhorrent crime…”), plus the school newsletter would be set at the Mike Buchanan Academy for Boys and Men (“and the women who love them”). I’ve been struggling to find my new Polly Filler but finally, today, I happened upon him: it’s novelist Tim Lott. More specifically, novelist Tim Lott in his Man about the house column for the Guardian.

I’m not quite sure why Lott has up till now escaped my notice. Perhaps I thought he and Tim Dowling were the same person.* Today, however, someone tweeted Lott’s latest report from the domestic front into my twitter timeline, a piece portentously titled There are no final truths in relationships.** A sort-of review of the film Before Midnight in which Lott a) slyly compares himself to Ethan Hawke’s character (ha!) and b) offers a passive-aggressive critique of his wife’s own habit of criticising him, it’s both hilarious and disturbing.

Using a central scene in the film as a springboard, Lott offers up a self-important analysis of what he calls the difference between “acceptance” (as displayed by him) and “resignation” (as displayed by his morally inferior wife). While acceptance is “a wholehearted, positive acceptance that no one can be everything you want them to be” (and “is hard”), resignation is “the refusal to take on board the fact that people are different from you and, anyway, you cannot cast the first stone unless you are without sin yourself”. While Lott generously allows that his wife might have “more to complain about than I do”, he argues that “one thing she doesn’t have to put up with — by and large — is me complaining about her”. Since he doesn’t add “except in the pages of a national newspaper” I’m assuming the irony of the whole character assassination has escaped him (and yes, I know I’m having a go at Tim myself, but then I’m not the one preaching bloody “acceptance” in the first place).

I’ve since learned that on all matters domestic, but especially those involving the humiliation of one’s nearest and dearest, Lott has form. Last week’s piece was called Money – the biggest taboo in a relationship, and in it, Lott discussed the apparent complexities of earning more than one’s wife when she happens to be doing more of the unpaid domestic labour. You and I might think “just share the bloody money” but apparently that’s “archaic” and Lott isn’t “quite sure what would be a better alternative”. Hence while he’s waiting for that alternative to appear, he keeps more money for himself and “if there’s a big expense, say a foreign holiday or house improvements, I tend to have the last say”. But don’t worry – it all balances out in the end:

My wife says that my having more money than her makes me feel powerful. She’s right – up to a point. It gives me an area of control, although I don’t think I use it in order to control. I just think some form of imbalance is inevitable. When it comes to the house and children, my wife enjoys virtually total authority.

The point that Lott seems to miss is that while his wife may have “authority” over the dirty socks, that’s because it’s become her job (in case you’re wondering, Lott shrunk a sweater in the wash once and is therefore incapable of helping). It’s the same type of “authority” Lott has over his writing. It’s not the same as the reward. It’s not the same as the fundamental freedoms that financial autonomy brings. I suspect deep down Lott knows this (how could he not?) but is playing dumb.

I’m reluctant to scream “domestic abuse!” when reading this – not least because this encroaches on the space of a woman I’ve never met – but it does set alarm bells ringing, especially since Lott suggests what he’s describing are not the peculiarities of his own relationship but universal truths about family life. In addition, it makes me think of Polly Filler in its blithe, middle-class assumptions about what domestic normality should be, its self-righteousness when describing the exploitation of others, its relentless criticism of a partner who is voiceless, and the way in which self-justification is offered up as a template for how all “liberated” couples should interact. It’s all desperately unpleasant. Moreover, while at first I was baffled at the very existence of this column, in many ways it seems a natural illustration of how sexist narratives have been transforming themselves in the wake of feminism.

Lott’s attitude reminds me of that of Mira’s husband in Marilyn French’s second-wave feminist work of fiction The Women’s Room. There, however, the husband lacks awareness; he is merely following the path of bourgeois normality, one that only Mira can question. Here, however, writing decades later, Lott is fully aware of the feminist narrative. He knows the lingo, so he pitches it differently. These are thoughtful musings on domestic life and the sheer complexity of, well, everything. And he’s a man and he’s writing about home life so actually, isn’t that liberating enough? What’s equality? What about acceptance, eh? Of course, Lott’s not very good at acceptance when it comes to, say, women having a literary prize of their own or his daughter thinking he’s more Homer Simpson that Atticus Finch (hurt at such an insult, Lott concludes that it’s linked to the fact that “our culture treats men and boys as second-class citizens” – and not, say, because he, Tim Lott, is indeed more Homer Simpson than Atticus Finch. I mean, come on, Tim. There are worse things to be, such as the kind of boor who doesn’t recognise the value of domestic labour and – oh).

I imagine there are members of the men’s right’s “movement” who’d consider Lott too “Guardian” to really be one of them. They’d be wrong. He’s the perfect example of the way in which, via Essential Difference neurosexism, Fathers 4 Justice grandstanding and hype over male underachievement, the men’s rights narrative of resentment has become mainstream. It could be there at your own dinner table. Don’t listen to it. Achieving the right balance is difficult in any household but we can all do better than resignation, acceptance or whatever someone who claims to speak for you is telling you to call it.

* Apologies to Dowling, and indeed all other Tims. I have since checked my non-Tim privilege and reminded myself that you are not all one person.

** One wonders how many lawyers offering up the defence in a domestic abuse case have used that very line.

PS I will be moderating all comments on this piece following recent MRA invasions. Sorry for any delays (please somebody comment, though, otherwise I’ll look a right prat for even mentioning this).

28 thoughts on “Tim Lott, the men’s rights movement’s very own Polly Filler

  1. Abso-fucking-lutely hysterically funny, truthful and wonderful.
    *pours Glosswitch a large one*

  2. Wow, he sounds like a massively whiny jerk. Also gotta love the way women get shafted with the domestic duties, whether they will or no (my father also did the destroying-clothes routine, but at least my brothers are just as capable of doing laundry as I am).

    Also: glad you’re moderating comments, but I’m sorry about the MRA invasion. Ugh it’s like the invasion of the body snatchers or something!😦

  3. Like you I read the article & past the laughable hypothesis was concerned as the general tone is that of a domestic abuse apologist. I no longer by the Guardian & this article is an example of why. Thank you for making mincemeat of this dangerous nonsense

    1. I have actually been wondering whether I should do something like rape apologist’s corner as a fortnightly feature on this blog. All submissions welcome, bonus points for references to grey areas, “we all agree rape is terrible but …” and/or women are like iPads/unlocked houses/wallets etc…

  4. Really glad you wrote this. I also read the Tim Lott piece in Guardian and was similarly pissed off by it, but you have articulated a feeling I had that I couldn’t exactly put into words. The thing that worries me most is that my domestic situation is similar (he earns more, I have more ‘ownership’ over the dirty socks) I haven’t tested this but I’m worried that my partner might have agreed with Lott. And unfortunately he’s in the majority. The world – even in more left wing politics nowadays is saturated in this anti-feminist domestic labour bashing. Tim Lott is supposed to be writing about being a ‘man about the house’ which obviously must grate with his male pride or something, because what he’s actually doing is showing off about how much more money he earns that his wife!

    1. I find the whole “man about the house” conceit pathetic. I have a male partner and sons so in Lott-land I’d also be classed as horribly “outnumbered” yet I can’t imagine positioning myself as “woman about the house”. They’re just my family and I love them!
      My mum and dad had a similar relationship to what you describe. To be honest, it worked for them and I don’t want to judge if it does, but I think it’s a really fine line (my dad would say things like “he who pays the piper calls the tune” but I know that deep down he’d share everything with my mum. However, the fact that someone like Lott could feel they don’t need to – indeed, that that is somehow “equal” not to – really freaks me out).
      I’ve sometimes earned more than my partner, sometimes less. I currently earn more but I’d love it if he got a massive pay rise just cos there’d be more money in the communal pot! On the domestic front we try to be equal but the way this has worked out is we both do less than the bare minimum (our house is a total state. Equality is a fine thing but we really should “equally” get a mop out once in a while!).

  5. It also strikes me that Lott comes across as deeply unimaginative, which doesn’t predispose me to read his novels (even if he weren’t such a tosspot). Can’t come up with any alternative between totally separate finances and ‘share it all’? Really, Mr Lott?

  6. Thank you for your post. It is, at times, pretty insightful and very articulate. I didn’t become a feminist until my mid-twenties, having had no role models as a young woman, and not understanding what it meant for me until I was better educated. I am in a marriage that challenges my feminist principles on a regular basis. I do the majority of the childcare, domestic chores and cooking and am in paid employment on a part time basis. My husband works full time and takes time away to work. His contribution to the domestic environment is far less than mine. This is not really what I imagined for my feminist self, and I find that I often fall into the trap of colluding with female friends about the inability of our partners to contribute equally to the household chores. I don’t like to hear myself complaining to other women, but I find the ability to uphold feminist principles in real life to be complex and challenging. Last week my 20 year old stepdaughter made her own birthday cake. Her boyfriend was there. When I asked her why he wasn’t making it or her, she replied that she didn’t trust him to make it, she said she wanted to control it. She is a strong, young feminist. And so I find this is where many of us fall down. We want total equality, but we’re often not prepared to risk giving something up to achieve it.

    I confess I do tend to criticise my husband more than he does me. I often feel I have good reason. But finally, I’m not sure criticism is the way to go with this. I too believe, as Lott says in the article “a criticism hurled does not solve any of the problems implicit in a relationship”. And I don’t think this quote is specifically aimed at all women. Men too can learn from this. In fact, I would have liked to see Lott make this point in the piece, and I think this is where he falls down.

    I agree with you about the irony of Lott’s condemnation of the wife criticising within the confines of the marital home while he has a national platform in which to do the very same. But I am not entirely sure it is the same thing. I also think the paragraph in which he argues that his wife’s world view embraces a catalogue of moral punches whilst his is about forgiveness and openness of spirit is not really forgivable.

    Your post has given me a great deal to think about, and it has been a challenge to my marriage. But you have, actually, already “encroached on the space of a woman you’ve never met” by writing it at all. Because my husband is Tim Lott. He is flawed, needs to be challenged on some fundamental feminist issues, doesn’t do enough housework. But he is full of love and he keeps on trying to do the right thing. He fails regularly, but he keeps on trying. And that is as much as I can ask.

    1. Hello Rachael
      Thank you for such a thoughtful, articulate comment. I did try in writing this not to drift from a response to overall worldview expressed in the column to a more personal critique of a relationship (of which clearly only certain elements are visible), but I’m sorry for not doing this better.
      I absolutely agree with what you say about compromises – it is pretty much impossible to make things totally equal, and hard to discuss it honestly because then you do end up putting your personal life (and that of other people) on the line, and then it never sounds as nuanced as it actually is. As a mother of boys, I worry about the broader “male victimhood” narrative that it seems to me Lott embraces – and which it’s hard not to then associate with the more specific descriptions of family life, but I can see that needs more teasing out.
      I know I’m not the only one who found Saturday’s column in particular quite unsettling, but agree the personal nature also makes it your space (which is why it’s so strange to see something like that expressed so publicly). I’m sorry for not distinguishing between this and the broader issues better (maybe it’s more a question – for me at least – of how these issues are framed within the “family life” sections of newspapers, whereas they do link in to something much more political).

    2. Great comment! I’m interested in your stepdaughter and the cake. A pattern I’ve seen in couples and also between parents and children is that one person is better (more skilled and more experienced) at a particular task and finds it difficult to release control of that task so that the other person can learn to do it. It’s most obvious when it comes to cooking, but it’s true of more mundane household tasks like ironing too. I have to fight quite hard with myself to let my partner learn by doing, let him make his own mistakes and find his own way of doing things. It means sometimes dinner takes a lot longer to get on the table, but I remind myself in the long run it’s better if we’re two people who are capable, rather than me running the show and getting things done efficiently but being constantly frustrated with my partner.

  7. I’ve always felt very conflicted in reading any of these pieces in magazines where the writer uses their personal lives and relates the goings-on of their family and friends. I don’t think it’s exclusive to men mind, Lucy Mangan springs to mind as someone who writes in often painful detail about her husband (or used to, I’m not sure she’s around now). I’ve always found it a very exploitative approach.

    I’d echo some of the other comments about Tim’s piece therefore in finding it more than a bit preachy and hypocritical in parts. The only point I’d add is that I believe it really goes with the territory of writing this kind of personal column, and is a sin committed by both men and women.

    On the actual point about housework and the division of labour, I can only draw on my personal experience. My wife gave up work after the birth of our second child, not just because she wanted to look after the children, but because she no longer felt a vocation for her chosen career. Shortly after that I found myself in the position of being the sole wage-earner for four dependents. I found this to be a pretty heavy strain and burden, particularly as the recession bit, and my job became subject to constant review. I found myself working longer hours, and at home I was frequently worried and stressed.

    My wife’s response was to criticise me almost constantly – sometimes for up to four or five hours a night. She would constantly berate me for not helping with the housework, or picking the children up from school, despite this taking place during working hours. Our sex life was non-existent, she threatened me with a divorce when I had to go to London for the day, which conflicted with a social engagement that same night. She was cold, judgemental and told me she was ‘very, very angry’. Her days were spent having lunch with friends, doing yoga and studying part time to be a counsellor. She qualified in 2011, and on the day she qualified she told me she was taking the boys and moving to be near her parents. We’re currently finalising the divorce.

    My soon-to-be-ex-wife regularly put me down for not being ‘stronger’, and any attempt at defense she would mock me for ‘trying to be the big man’. There have been many occasions in the past couple of years when I’ve felt suicidal, and I’m on the anti-depressant Citalopram for the duration.

    My ex is a Cambridge-educated feminist, and I have to say that my marriage to her has been easily the worst experience of my life. It’s left me with deep and abiding concerns about both feminism and women generally. For whatever reason – and I don’t pretend to be an expert on feminism – it seems to me that feminism is incompatible with having a healthy, respectful relationship with men.

    If you’re going to believe that men have oppressed women for millennia, then you’re in a relationship with a man, and you suddenly realise that he has weaknesses and vulnerabilities, it seems to me the next step is to assume that this indicates he comes up short as a man, and then reject him.

    I think many men understand this, and this is one reason why men like Tim Lott see one solution as maintaining ‘control’ or independence of finances. I split my net income after paying all the bills and expenses with my ex 50/50. I now see this as a colossal mistake, and in future I would not allow a woman to have any control or access to my finances at all.

    It’s a shame that being in charge of a home is something that can be decried as ‘authority over dirty socks’ while earning money is praised as giving the ‘fundamental freedoms’ of ‘financial autonomy’. If I have to go to work, or my children don’t eat, then I’m not experience much ‘freedom’ – I don’t have a choice. In fact, all I have is a burden. My ex by contrast could decide to stay at home or work; this is a choice I don’t have. If I did, I’d have loved to stay at home.

    What concerns me is that so many women seem blind to the idea that men also can’t ‘have it all’. They don’t seem to see the colossal male suicide and mental health rates as being connected in any way to the pressure on men to provide for and enable the choices freely made by women.

    I wish I knew what the answer is to these conundrums, but I have to say that I’m not optimistic.

    1. It seems a shame that you feel that you can only draw on your personal your personal experience when it comes to discussing ‘housework’ and ‘the division of labour’, and then extrapolate from that to make generalised assertions about women, feminism and relationships. Could you make room in your discussion for the idea that every relationship is different, that all relationships are not the same as the one you had?

      > “For whatever reason – and I don’t pretend to be an expert on feminism – it seems to me that feminism is incompatible with having a healthy, respectful relationship with men.”

      You are wrong about that. Feminism can provide a wonderful foundation upon which to build a healthy respectful relationship.

      > “If you’re going to believe that men have oppressed women for millennia, then you’re in a relationship with a man, and you suddenly realise that he has weaknesses and vulnerabilities, it seems to me the next step is to assume that this indicates he comes up short as a man, and then reject him.”

      It seems to me that women might be better placed than you to identify what the next step in that thought process might be. In any case, feminism in part fights against the stereotype that men cannot show weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

      > “They don’t seem to see the colossal male suicide and mental health rates as being connected in any way to the pressure on men to provide for and enable the choices freely made by women.”

      Similar to my comment above…feminism sees all of this, and just as feminism wants to liberate women, it also wants to free men from the pressure that you describe above.

      In summary, feminism has the answers to those conundrums.

      1. Men are different to women, most men accept women’s liberation as healthy and right, allowing women to develop and grow from the oppressed demographic of the 1950’s into whatever they want to be today. Men, collectively, are not trying to change women or shape them into something different, women have been given free reign to do that, and to continue to do that, all by themselves.

        Feminism on the other hand seeks to change men into something that it finds more acceptable. There are many variations on what acceptable is depending on the extremity of the feminism involved.

        Feminism has the answers to problems for women and women alone. It only has solutions for men who are prepared to conform to its own collective ideology. It offers solutions to those conundrums if men are happy to bend to feminisms designs of what a the ideal man is when in actual fact there is no such definition of an ideal man, just as there is no definition of an ideal woman.

        I think what is needed instead of feminism is equalitarianism. A recognition that everyone is equal and free to be who and what they want to be. It would also likely gain much greater support and buy in from men if they felt like they were working for the benefit of the whole of society rather than just 50% of it.

        Feminism is a little bit too George Orwell – all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. All people are equal but women are more equal than men.

        1. “Are you aware how strange, entitled and patronising your first paragraph sounds? Just curious.”

          It only sounds that way if you allow it to sound that way, if you are predisposed to read such sentiment. Personally, I’ve never been one to pay attention to “entitlement” or “privilege”. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, it’s a privilege of living in a western society.

          What I’m saying is not that men have taken pity on women and given them permission to be emancipated. What I am saying is that collectively men have not really provided much serious opposition to women’s emancipation nor have they attempted to guide in any particular direction. In fact most men have just sort of got on with life while it’s happened and as a consequence, the process of emancipation has been what it has. It’s not an at attempt to belittle women’s liberation or indeed to take any credit for it.

        2. > “most men accept women’s liberation as healthy and right, allowing women to develop and grow…Men, collectively, are not trying to change women or shape them into something different, women have been given free reign to do that…”

          Lucky lucky women.:/

          Here’s a link for you: http://guysguidetofeminism.com/. It might even blow your mind. Check it out.

      2. >Could you make room in your discussion for the idea that every relationship is different, that all relationships are not the same as the one you had?

        Of course. One could quite reasonably argue my experience is cis-gendered and heteronormative for instance. However I don’t believe you could argue my experience is asymptomatic, as you seem to be saying. In the developed world we have moved from a marriage-based family system, to a child-support-based family system, in which women have the option to replace a husband with the state. Whether this is a good thing or not is very much an open question. What it has done is allow women a third life choice, which removes any restriction upon their natural desire to reject sub-standard ‘beta’ males.

        >You are wrong about that. Feminism can provide a wonderful foundation upon which to build a healthy respectful relationship.

        If we’re talking about a woman in a relationship with a man, then as I say, it will be healthy and respectful so long as that man retains the respect of his partner. Should he display any ‘beta’ characteristics; insecurities or experiences a ‘breakdown’ for instance, that respect will be instantly and definitively withdrawn. I can assure you that I have seen this occur time, and time, and time again; there are no exceptions. Women usually describe this as being attracted to charisma, confidence or ‘success’. This is the case whether the woman idenfitifies as a ‘feminist’ or not. Women find men who are not ‘confident’ abhorrent. As I say; there are NO exceptions. Women’s gendered expectations of men are absolute.

        >It seems to me that women might be better placed than you to identify what the next step in that thought process might be.

        Women openly admit to this being their thought process.

        >…feminism sees all of this, and just as feminism wants to liberate women, it also wants to free men from the pressure that you describe above.

        I’m not sure that feminism does actually, but I am perfectly prepared to concede that some individuals who identify as feminists may well do. If, however, you are a feminist who defines male gendered roles through the lens of ‘patriarchy’ theory, then you would view those ‘pressures’ as being blow-back from privilege rather than responsibility.

        1. What you are arguing about all women just isn’t true. I’m sorry if that’s been your experience but sorry, too, that you have such a low opinion of half the human race. I think it is true that this is still an environment in which a woman’s status is unduly dependent upon the status of her partner – and how this status is evaluated is definitely gets distorted by gender stereotypes (if I come across as more dominant than my partner, for instance, all the henpecked / under the thumb / Lady MacBeth stereotypes come to the fore – it’s worth bearing in mind that this makes life harder for everyone, not just men). It’s also difficult because women need financial autonomy as much as men but as long as we expect them to do most of the unpaid work they are dependent on male achievement. This isn’t fair on anyone, but I think it’s misguided to place the blame on some kind of natural impulse in women. I think it’s gender stereotyping – and that’s surely better, because that can change.
          Footnote: I did receive a follow-up comment to this, which I’m not approving because this is my blog, not a misogynist moaning forum. Please, Sasha, find your own space – and meet more people, because your perception of men is just as patronising and unreal as your perception of women.

        2. Well said. While I think it’s slightly unfair to tar the entire female gender with that brush (even though feminists are often quick to identify men or anyone else who disagrees with them, as a single collective of equally guilty individuals) I’ll certainly grant you that it’s not an uncommon occurrence and it is a mindset perpetrated through various media channels. It’s basically the WAG lifestyle and a lot of women chase that dream and expect it to come true

  8. I don’t see Tim as complaining about his wife at all in this piece. He’s describing the attitudes in his relationship as he sees them. Why is he doing this? Is it because he is a Patriarchist? Perhaps. But maybe it’s because he’s a columnist and he’s paid to write columns. He’s chosen to write one on acceptance vs resignation.

    He also doesn’t see his wife as morally inferior – that would be resignation. He accepts her and is happy with that, even with all the complaining. Equality is a key element of acceptance. If you think someone is inferior or superior, you can only ever resign yourself to the fact that they are not your equal. If you accept a persons character flaws, you overlook them and they no longer become important. Without flaws, or perceived flaws, people are suddenly equal, having nothing for you to judge them by.

    As discrimination normally stems from prejudice, if there was more acceptance, there would be less judging, less prejudice and consequently less discrimination.

    I think Tim Lott’s piece was incredibly thought provoking. It has certainly made me think about whether I accept my relationship or whether I am resigned to it.

    1. Hmm. Even if I believed in this pretty shaky and subjective distinction, I’m not sure I’d write a piece in which I positioned myself as the exemplification of acceptance while exposing my partner’s sin of resignation to the world. Even if I thought it, I’d still have to acknowledge that we don’t always know our own flaws and I might want to entertain the thought that my partner would see things differently. Basically, if it was so important to make this point using personal examples, I think most people would cast themselves in the “baddie” role, just out of politeness to their partner. It seems to me mean not to to.

      1. He’s a columnist. He has to write columns with a certain frequency which does not permit much time for large scale research. He would naturally use himself and his situation as the example.

        He also writes opinion pieces, which are precisely that – opinion and opinion is always based on one’s own perception and experience. In this case the only perception and experience he could possibly have of this that of his own relationship and, of course, the one he saw in a film.

        1. Pretty selective perception and experience. Has he only been in one relationship? Has he only ever seen one film? Has he read any books or watched any television? Does he know any friends or relatives who are or have been in relationships?

        2. He probably has seen other films, but you can’t really use a film as evidence or as a representative example. In his column he uses it to trigger an analysis of his own marriage and draws comparisons between the film and his own marriage.

          Maybe he does know other married couples but he obviously does not presume to know anything about how the respective partners feel about each other and he certainly should not speculate about them.

        3. onlyonepinman,

          I don’t particularly disagree with what you’ve said, but I found it odd that you would use a defence of the article your belief that his relationship and one film are the only perception and experience he could possibly draw on. And whilst that he should not speculate about the relationships of other married couples, you don’t seem to see any problem with the wild extrapolation of his narrow field of experience to make assertions about all relationships ever.

          And this also seems to be what sasha is doing. On the basis of one relationship that he describes as ‘easily the worst experience’ of his life, he now knows everything about what all women ever think and what all women ever want. And – despite not being an expert in feminism – he is confident in making broad all-encompassing (and just plain wrong) statements about feminism and feminist thought.

        4. I’m not so much defending explaining why it is the way it is. It’s just an opinion column, intended to share his thoughts and opinions on the world and his life in much the same way as this blog. It offers no offence, unless offence is looked for nor is it particularly incendiary. It doesn’t need defending, nor does it, or it’s author, need to be attacked or branded a sexist as he is clearly neither.

Comments are closed.