The Atlantic and GMP

The Atlantic just published “The Psychology of Feminism and the Queer Case of Hugo Schwyzer” by Raphael Magarik.

We have obviously parted ways with Hugo. He wrote many pieces for us that were engaging and controversial, but in the end we were clearly going in different ideological directions, as he even mentions in the piece: we are interested in affirming the goodness of men while Hugo is dedicated to pointing out our failings. We wish him well despite that ideological divide.

We do want to clarify our mission.  The Atlantic piece gave a very partial view of what we work on every day to ensure this is an expansive discussion and movement.

1. Do we attempt speak for all men?  No, our mission has always been grounded in personal narrative in which each writer describes a turning point in their life as a father, husband, son, worker, or just a man. There are as many turning points, narratives, and definitions of goodness as there are men. We welcome them all.

2. Are men and women different? Yes, beyond what we have in our shorts. The variety of men and the variety of women is unlimited, but we do try to grapple with the ways in which men who aspire to be good dads and husbands particularly have to navigate gender as an issue. That means talking openly about how some men feel misunderstood by some women, and vice versa. It also means talking about how lasting intimacy and love can flourish despite the different expectations that men and women might bring to romantic love.

3. Why does GMP exist? There simply is no other forum for a thoughtful discussion of manhood. Traditional media casts men in a simplistic out-of-date representation (think Bud Light or GQ), when most men in 2012 live a complex, nuanced life in which they have to sort out the meaningful masculinity and goodness in a vacuum.

4. Does GMP have a party line? No. Over 400 writers actively participate in generating content for the magazine. We have always aspired to a national conversation about manhood. A “conversation” by definition means that there are not set positions or doctrines of what is and is not an acceptable point of view on manhood, gender, politics, or anything else. Often, when readers disagree strongly with something they have read on GMP, we invite them to contribute a response, which we commit to publishing. Our philosophy is, the more varied the views on our site the better. As Tom Matlack said when he started our series of live events inside the walls of Sing Sing prison with a group of ten life-time inmates, “No one, and I mean no one, is excluded from the conversation about what it means to be a good man.”

5. How does GMP view feminism? Feminism is a label loaded with all kinds of different meanings to different people. There’s a body of academic and theoretical constructs which support modern day feminism. We are not a site devoted to theory. We focus on the real stories at the frontlines of manhood. As such, we are HIGHLY interested in talking about what it means to be a good husband, a good father, what role pornography plays in defining manhood, and issues like sex trafficking. That said, even on these controversial topics we are open to publishing a wide variety of different experiences and points of view. We are adamant about supporting equal rights for men and women and for talking openly about the situations where that is not the case. What we can’t do is adopt one ideology which prevents the kind of expansive discourse we aspire to. There are many of the GMP writers who self-identify themselves as feminists, including all of the founders and the CEO. But we refuse to accept a litmus test by which only feminism points of view are allowed on the site.

6. How does GMP feel about men’s rights and the MRA movement? We are strong supporters of men’s groups of a wide variety.  We don’t see ourselves as endorsing one or another as these groups generally have a different more narrowly focused agenda than ours. With regard to men who affiliate themselves with the Men’s Rights movement, we do want to facilitate civil discussion around ways in which men have been misrepresented in the media, treated unfairly in family court, and been ignored when it comes to being victims of sexual abuse (among many other issues). We see these issues as central to our mission to deepen our collective understanding of what manhood and goodness looks like in the 21st century.

7. Does publishing a piece on GMP mean that the editorial team agrees with what the writer has to say? Absolutely not. In fact, we often publish pieces together which take the exact opposite points of view for the very reason that we want to facilitate thoughtful discussion.

8. Are there limits to what GMP will and won’t publish? We have recently revised our commenting policy to ensure that discussion is civil and constructive. We have also put a comment review procedure in place which will insure the policy is followed. With regard to editorial content itself we try to publish as much and varied material as we possibly can on our core manhood topic areas. But we won’t publish pieces that are intended to be hurtful or damaging by way of character assignation. And we do attempt to keep men’s voices front and center since our mission has always been to provide a forum for men to talk about manhood. Women are certainly welcome to the party but we want to insure that we stick to the mission.

9. Are men in crisis? Yes, but not the one that Hannah Rosen wrote about in “The End of Men.” There are as many different experiences of modern manhood as there are men. But one thing is for sure: men of all colors, occupations, sexual orientations, religions, economic status, and ages are searching for meaning in new and different ways. Many more men want to be involved fathers, even being the stay at home parent. Many more men don’t just want a physical relationship with their spouse but a deep emotional connection. Many men are re-evaluating the role of work in their lives and trying to sort out its importance relative to their home life. Many men are frustrated by the endless press covering men behaving badly and the seeming disinterest by mainstream media in real men who are trying to do the right thing in their lives.

10. What is the goal of GMP? To change the way men and masculinity are viewed in America and around the world. To provide a way for men who feel alone in their struggles–with parenthood, with divorce, with marriage, with professional success, with professional failure, with addiction, with abuse, with racism, with romantic love, with the search for meaning–to feel less alone and realize we are all in this together.


About the Editors

We're all in this together.


  1. Hi,
    I’m not sure where to post this but I figure this is sort of a welcome new readers from the Atlantic type article so I’ll put it here.

    Can someone please explain how this website is supposed to work?

    Front Page Stuff:
    How does the front page organize articles? I see it broken into different topic sections but the stories displayed seem to change at random (or at least be some formula I have yet to divine.) Sometimes I find really old articles there. As an example, I’d like to see if there were any new updates on the ” The Atlantic and GMP ” article but I haven’t seen it on the front page for a while and have to use the search box to find it all the time. I’m expecting it to be on or near the front page since it isn’t that old of an article.

    What makes the “Popular Posts” Popular? Page views? Why are the same articles usually on it when the article thread seems to have no activity?

    I think “Most Recently Posted” sections is only for the newest articles. Is there a “Most Recently Posted comments” feature. The articles are great for generating topics but I feel the real dialog is happening in the comment threads.

    Article comments:
    Is there any way to change the way comments are displayed? Maybe into something more hierarchical that would allow you to hide replies and use more of the screen width.

    Once a discussion really gets going the comment boxes get tinier and tinier with a lot of space wasted on thin grey lines surrounding the comments.

    I also find it very difficult follow comments after a bunch of nested replies. I find I have to try to keep my eye on a specific line as I scroll up and down trying to find which comment that person is responding to.

    What is the easiest way to find the newest comments on any article? I find myself scrolling through the article comments looking for something dated for from the last couple of days. If there are enough comment to spill over into another day I have to do the same for that page as well.

    The constant page refresh:
    Why does this always happen?

    I’m reading along in the article or comments and then I notice the browser is doing something strange and then the page refreshes. I’ve lost my place and have to scroll around to find where I was. About a quarter of the time the page load fails and I need to copy the address, close the browser window and paste the it into the new copy of the browser just opened to get the page loaded again.

    This refresh is annoying if I’m reading the site a work on a break and want to come back to where I was when I have some more down time.

    If I’m at home reading something interesting from you site and it refresh 2-3 time while I’m on the same page I usually just leave.


    • Lisa Hickey says:

      Hi, thanks for stopping in. I’m the publisher, so I’ll answer your questions.

      The front page articles are mostly new up top, older post do rotate through randomly on categories where new stuff doesn’t get posted much. We have a lot of evergreen content, and 65% of our visitors are new, so there is no reason for a new visitor not to have access to some of our older, evergreen posts posts.

      As for the commenting section — great idea about trying to find a plugin for Most Recently Posted Comment.

      We hope to be starting a section of the site that is a discussion board / forum within the next few weeks, which we hope will solve a lot of the problems with the current commenting system.

      We are also working on the page refresh, thanks.

  2. To be fair, The Atlantic article was about feminism, which is a tangential issue to this forum. So its depiction of TGMP was bound be at least a little off-kilter, simply because the focus is in an entirely different direction.

    • I don’t know about that Copyleft. There is a difference between, “There’s the Good Men Project and that’s what they do, its different but oh well.” and the “They are just a bunch of woman hating anti-feminists over there.” sentiment that’s come out in the comments. This coming from folks that try to prop their movement up as the one movement in all of human history to be 100% on every issue (even when it comes to men) therefore if you disagree with them on anything you are automatically wrong.

      Kinda makes you wonder what they think of the feminists that contribute over here…

      • Julie Gillis says:

        I wonder that too. I’m pretty used to finding allies in odd places. It’s just as hard, I think, to work collaboratively with people you may not agree with than to stand at poles. Both are often necessary though.

  3. Mervyn Kaufman says:

    There simply is no other forum for a thoughtful discussion of manhood.

    This, from Tom, is the most cogent and apt description of GMP I’ve ever read, a kind of mantra that all contributors should keep in mind, particularly because of the way The Atlantic has misinterpreted our thrust. Feminism is but one of the issues that we writers engage in GMP—and even among women feminism has infinitely varied meanings. I for one am glad Hugo will no longer have a voice on the site. Yes, he writes brilliantly, but in reading him I’ve always felt there was another agenda percolating somewhere beneath the surface. Being a Southern Californian by birth, I know a little something about Pasadena, thus have frequently wondered, “What the hell is he teaching those kids?” His is such a powerful, eloquent voice; if I were a Pasadena parent, I might be justifiably concerned about many of the distortions expressed in Hugo’s writings—and, presumably, in his lectures as well.
    I’m not particularly concerned about Hugo, not anymore. I’m truly hopeful—and optimistic—that GMP will continue to be a forum for men of all ages and persuasions to be able to express themselves and air their concerns freely. There is no right or wrong, except where judicial and religious laws are concerned. I hope that GMP continues to tackle challenging subject matter without preaching…and that it continues to reach out ·(not to score points or make headlines) to men who, for whatever reason, may have allowed themselves to feel isolated and remote from the needs and demands of others in our society. Men are said to be stoics, always shouldering their pain. GMP should continue to challenge that bromide and encourage men to probe their feelings and beliefs without making judgments or setting limits. Tom, my heart is with you. You and Lisa have been responsible for publishing a number of pieces I’ve written…that no other outlet would have ever considered. In that respect, I feel truly blessed.

  4. Dear egalitarian feminists, remember how the MRA’s get in such a fit over feminism and the whataboutthemenz shaming, privilege slinging, general non-acceptance of men in their movement, and how feminism is NOT for male issues to be helped? I’ve got some quotes from the comment section of the atlantic for you to peruse and it might illustrate the type of feminist many mra’s encounter. It’s the easiest way to understand why there are so many anti-feminists, and why there are quite a few mra’s or even just men who’ve felt like feminism wasn’t accepting of them.

    “The one comment that stood out the most to me is Zoe Nicholson’s that men’s ideal involvement in the feminist movement is as passive actors. “Behind,” “underneath,” “away,” men’s thoughts are irrelevant, they just need to give/raise money and stay out of the way. Is she right about this? ”

    and the reply to this comment just under this line.

    “Yes, she is. The society we live in values the voices of men over women, so feminism needs to be a place where women’s voices are paramount. If men want to share their thoughts and feelings, there’s the whole rest of the world to do that in. Feminism is for women. ”

    Basically shutup you privileged male, we want feminism as a female-space

    “Yes, it’s women’s responsibility once again to reach out to teh menz. Not that of men to get off their behinds and fight sexism. Fail. ”

    Menz with the z is commonly used in an insulting manner, “What about the menz”. The comment may also be ignoring sexism against men but not too sure on that.

    “Not my job to convince a man to be a decent human being if his parents failed. Also, given that society encultures women to cater to men in every other arena, I don’t give a damn if men feel hurt at being “excluded” by feminism. It’s not about them. Deal. ”

    Against, feminism is not about men, men have all of society, yadda yadda.

    “No, I don’t care what men have to say about feminism. They can have a say in feminism when women get to have a say in the patriarchy. ”

    Funnily enough in the earlier days women probably did have quite a say in the “patriarchy” if it exists.

    Now this is the kind of feminism that clashs with the egalitarian feminism, it seems they believe ONLY women have issues and men have “all the power”(TM), society is for men and men benefit so much.

    “I just don’t understand why you are meekly submitting to the bigoted rhetoric of someone who hates you for no other reason than the pairing of your chromosomes. I’m a woman and an advocate for women’s rights, but I find this poisonous strain of feminism to be completely disgusting. I just don’t understand how you, a man and therefore the target of this bile, can react in any other way. ”

    Seems some feminists are calling out the radfems (I’m guessing that is what the above were) which is a good sign.

    “Exactly, both genders are simultaneously privileged and disprivileged by our traditional gender roles. When it comes to the courtroom (family or criminal), women have a distinct advantage. As to laws against stereotypically gendered violence. I’m speaking of special legal provisions for things like rape and domestic abuse. Where a man’s right to due process is in the name of keeping women safe. Extrajudicial punishments for accused abusers, and rape shield laws that unconstitutionally prevent men accused of rape from being able to present an affirmative defense. Also consider the fact that male victims of domestic violence are more likely to be arrested than their abusers if they call the police. Even if the male victim is dripping with blood, and his female abuser doesn’t have a scratch on her. I’m a criminal defense attorney and I see these things all the time. I was a pretty rabid feminist in college. Then I entered the legal profession and I see just how fundamentally unfair and discriminatory our justice system is to men. There is a growing recognition of this problem amongst attorneys. Even ardently feminist attorneys are beginning to admit that men get the shaft in court.”

    This comment really stood out as someone in the industry who see’s the harm men can face and how sexism against men can actually be institutionalized.

    This is what men face, even women who support male issues face, there is a clear division in feminism between egalitarians and gynocentrics. This is where the anti-feminism comes from as it’s commonly said that the gynocentric feminists actually have power, ability to lobby for gendered laws that are harmful to men and keeping the victim-mentality going on. It’s important I feel for everyone to see this division in what people think feminism is as it should help illustrate why feminism gets such a bad name at times. I agree it’s unfair to paint them all with the same brush but please understand there is I feel a legitimate concern with regard to feminism on male issues, I truly do not feel safe or comfortable discussing male issues in feminist spaces because of previous experiences where gynocentrics have belittled, antagonized and minimized the experience of men and egalitarians were few n far between.

    Feminism for some is a view of equalism, so an attack on feminism can appear to be an attack on equal rights, it can also be seen as an attack on FEMALE rights, but most commonly I see it an attack on hypocrisy by x amount of feminists who cry foul of societies treatment of women but silence or even insulting on issues regarding men. There is a hell of a lot of bigotry within many self-indentified feminists but it’s the socially acceptable kind, bigotry against men and to dare question this will cop a near zealous reaction, and to dare question feminism will quickly land you accused of being a misogynist, hater of equality, “privileged white cis-male”, and other diversionary tactics.

    Sorry to say it but quite a lot of feminists have tarnished the name and it’s up to feminists to fix it somehow, when SO MANY men and WOMEN start to call out feminism like I’ve seen recently, there is a big problem. Radfems, or gynocentrics, whatever label they are…seem to be destroying the good name of feminism and that’s sad because the founding principle was a good one. This is my opinion of course, I totally love egalitarian feminists and hate that their voices aren’t heard as much because of the instant association of feminism with the gynocentric misandrists, it’s unfair to be lumped together but quite frankly it’s similar to what mra’s face when they’re lumped together with the androcentric misogynists. I know quite a few egalitarian people and not many like to call themselves MRA or feminist, that in itself to me speaks volumes. Work together people! It seems many of each have the same goals just on different sides of the fence.

    • Oh my brother/sister testify!!

      • All male:P Though I’d look mighty dandy in a dress!:P

        • Really now? I personally have a horrible figure and a dress simply would not do for me. And I have really big feet.

          • Same, Danny. Well…except that my feet aren’t an issue when it comes to dresses, for obvious reasons. 😉

            • Well Heather what’s the point of a stunning dress when you don’t have the stunning footwear to go with it? If one is to “Work It” then one has to “Work It” properly!

              • Oh I thought you were referring to the joke about men with big feet have big penises and that you’d have a tough time tucking it back. I totally misunderstood that one. lol.

                And omg that phrase ‘work it’ has been forever ruined by that sit-com. It makes me sad. 🙁 But that’s another topic.

          • Danny, from memory youve said that you are overweight.
            Western style trousers look too tight and emasculating on overweight men.

            Id encourage you to look at wearing wraps or a particularly the kilt(scots or utilkilt).
            The larger the waist of the man, the more august, the more masculine the wrap or the kilt looks

            • All I can say is amen to stretchy fabric shorts. In the hot tropical north of Australia they are very comfy and not constrictive at all.

            • Mmmmm….

              Oddly pants don’t seem to be much of a problem for overweight guys (at least not in my experience) as far as tightness and emasculation. Admittedly it can be rather difficult to find a clothes. You know how women say that its hard to find anything over a size ___? Same thing with men’s clothes (hell I recall going to an Old Navy years ago and seeing 36 waist pants stocked in the Big and Tall section).

              But kilts? No way. I have a set of tighs that forces me to buy pants that are acutally a bit too large for my waist. No way am I wearing a garment that would allow for a clearer view of them. But thanks for the recommendation.

    • It is 100% true that feminism is the movement “of the women, by the women and for the women.” The men who try to participate in it are completely deluded. Equality is the shield of feminism which is only used to deflect valid criticism, otherwise it means nothing. I had once asked a feminist author who wrote a opinion piece on GMP as what feminism has ever done for men and she asked me to read a book written by a feminist scholar to find my answer.

  5. Some of the comments in there are typical “What about the menz” shaming. It made me sick just reading that section.

    Danny was the only sane voice of reason in a sea of garbage.

    • You noticed that too Eagle?

      I know I’ve done my fair share of fire tossing when it comes to heated discussions but damn. Honestly I see reflections of my (not too) old self in some of the heat over there. But I’ll say this. I think some of those folks are letting their true colors show in that they think when it comes to feminism men must join up or we hate women and when we do we must be seen and not heard (unless of course we’re just echoing support for women). I’ll take the feminists over here any day of the week because I don’t see Joanna, Lisa, Julie, etc… expecting men to just stay quiet.

      In fact if you think about it. Activists that want men to do their part for equality for all people but only in the capacity that women tell them to act as part of a movement that started as a way to combat the way women were held in a similar capacity by some men. There must be a word for this…

      • Lisa Hickey says:

        Thanks Danny. I don’t know how anyone could possibly think that having men “just stay quiet” and not talk about the issues they are experiencing could be helpful. Real activism benefits everyone, not just the silo of the day. Appreciate all your contributions to the discussions.

        • Precisely Lisa. I have no problem with women in and of themselves speaking on men’s issues and while I do think that women shouldn’t take the lead I’m not going to dismiss someone just because they are a woman.

          Funny, trying to force someone into a position just because of their gender. There should be a word for that.

          • Peter Houlihan says:

            I don’t see any issue with a woman taking the lead of a men’s movement. If they have something worth saying they should say it. The whole insider thing when it comes to equality movements bothers me.

            I can understand why it would be inappropriate if the individual in question had no experience of the issue whatsoever, but I don’t see how anyone can claim that a woman has no experience of manhood, unless she was brought up in a lesbian separatist commune or something. Same goes for women’s movements, outsider’s perspectives are invaluable.

            • I can understand why it would be inappropriate if the individual in question had no experience of the issue whatsoever, but I don’t see how anyone can claim that a woman has no experience of manhood…
              Its a matter of gender roles being so vastly different between men and women. Being raised as a one or the other can lead to a very different experience in even common things like clothing, job, or taste in media.

              So while it is certainly not impossible for a woman to have experience of manhood its just that for the most part the odds of a woman having experience with manhood (much less enough experience to actually override men’s voice) are extremely slim. And vice versa on men having experience with womanhood.

              Same goes for women’s movements, outsider’s perspectives are invaluable.
              Oh I agree with hardily. Outsider experience is certainly valuable. Its very useful to hear a woman talk about her experiences with men if for no other reason than it gives us a picture of how said women (the outsiders in this case) see us. And we have to be able to see outselves from all angles if we want to improve ourselves.

              Which is why I’m put off by feminists who expect men to just be quiet and only speak with spoken to (but then have the nerve to get mad because men aren’t putting in the work). Too many of them think that women’s experiences with men is the entire picture when its only a part of it. A very valuable part mind you but still only a part. Actually I’ll say that many of them at best think they can use only the male experiences that they choose, combine with their own experiences, and decide on what “The Male Experience” is and then dictate what men need to do in order to change.

              Feminists like that don’t want to work with men they want men to work for them out of some deluded sense that they have been working for men for ages and the only way to change things for the betterment is for men to work for women now. But as has been pointed out here many times its going to take everyone working together to fix things. Trying to establish a hierarchy of “who works for who” is doomed to fail from the start.

              And the same seems to happen with MRAs as well.

              • Peter Houlihan says:

                I didn’t mean to suggest that women know manhood from the inside better than men, but they might know what it looks like on the outside better. Kindof like that moment when you hear your own voice in a tape recorder and realise what you actually sound like to other people.

                From reading the rest of that it sounds like we agree.

  6. Mark Ellis says:

    The Schwyzer issue was covered and commented upon at length here, so I agree with Tom that we’ve been there, done that.

    Regarding gender roles, why are they often painted as a bad thing. Hey, if you find the traditional roles of your gender stultifying, you’re free to eject them, but for me, to paraphrase Chuck Heston, you’ll have to pry my valued gender identity and societal role out of my cold dead hands.

    • Lisa Hickey says:

      That made me laugh Mark. Thanks.

    • Love the quote…erm…paraphrase. 😉

      But uh, to put in my opinion because I can’t resist….I think you are right and wrong at the same time when it comes to gender roles. Yes, people who don’t fit the mould can reject their gender roles (at least in the west). But even here, you face a heck of a lot of societal pressure to embrace them.

      Now because I’m a woman I am going to end up talking about this from a woman’s point of view. But like, okay I don’t want children. I have never wanted children. It is the most awkward thing in the world to have to tell that to someone, and then to have to explain. Because they immediately think I’m strange and weird, and just a little bit off. It’s a whole dance, where I use sarcasm and a cheerful sense of humor all to explain why I don’t want kids – all to put people at ease and assure them that I’m still normal.

      I’ve known men who didn’t enjoy sports, and they’ve had to go through a similar dance. It’s especially bad if they’re straight and yet tolerant of LGBT people. Then they have to explain, no they’re not gay. But no they don’t think being gay is a bad thing. And they don’t like sports, but actually they’re not fond of show tunes either. It is this whole thing that they have to go through – all to explain one way in which they don’t fit their gender norms.

      So, you know, yeah you can reject traditional gender roles. But it’s still damn tough.

      • Funny that, I find most sports to be boring and totally tolerate lgbt people. But I also don’t care if people call me gay, even the guys. I’m still attracted to women so those guys better watch out as their partners might desire me instead. I find it hard to relate to some guys but there seems to be quite a few these days who aren’t into the stereotypical sports stuff, although I do love my SHED and love to tinker, build stuff, etc. Hopefully I’ll find a partner who also likes to build stuff and breaks the gender-role mold, cuz I’ll definitely help teach and learn from her.

        When I was younger I cared more about what others thought, especially on being a man but these days…A man is just, a man, you can’t define them really because they vary so much. Maybe a man is simply someone that identifies as a man?

        • “Maybe a man is simply someone that identifies as a man?”

          That’s usually how I treat most identities. Cynthia Nixon got a lot of flack for saying she was a lesbian, but also saying she’d had relationships with men and had chosen to be a lesbian. I kinda thought…well heck, if she wants to identify as a lesbian, let her.

          Most of my post, though, was just sort of to illustrate that it’s not easy for everyone to step outside their gender norms. That is why I think a lot of people want to get rid of them, because they can be so confining.

          • Peter Houlihan says:

            Just on the Cynthia Nixon thing, words are important. Lesbian is usually defined as meaning a woman who is only attracted to women. Expanding that definition into biexuality leaves genuine Lesbians open to accusations of making an immoral choice etc.

  7. One question.

    We have obviously parted ways with Hugo. He wrote many pieces for us that were engaging and controversial, but in the end we were clearly going in different ideological directions, as he even mentions in the piece: we are interested in affirming the goodness of men while Hugo is dedicated to pointing out our failings. We wish him well despite that ideological divide.

    Are we allowed to talk about the content of that article at The Atlantic about Hugo or is this pretty much limited to talking about the GMP is all about and talk of Hugo is off limits?

    2. Are men and women different? Yes, beyond what we have in our shorts. The variety of men and the variety of women is unlimited, but we do try to grapple with the ways in which men who aspire to be good dads and husbands particularly have to navigate gender as an issue. That means talking openly about how some men feel misunderstood by some women, and vice versa. It also means talking about how lasting intimacy and love can flourish despite the different expectations that men and women might bring to romantic love.
    Ideally they would not be different (and I think that “ideally” is where people get so heated about the belief that men and women are different) but even with how long gender roles have dominated men and women I don’t think its as simple as just saying “no they aren’t different” and it being so. Now once gender roles are done away with and males and females can be as they wish then the answer to that question may be no, someday.

Speak Your Mind