Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
New User
Shogun
Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 218
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Pro and cons of families Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 10:45 |
If feminism is contribtuing to falling birth rates...so what? We complain about imigration and now birth rates?
Feminism in my mind means choice and equality for women, if we are to complain about that and try and change it in any way we are "forcing" women to breed and breed and breed. If it is the rise of equality for women that has led to a drop of birth rates, does it not mean women do not like to give birth so often on such a large scale? So if the country's male population find that bad they complain, say it hurts their country and therefore their lifestyle and so it follows? that women should give up their choices and freedom to give birth?
I don't understand....what is the problem. what is the final outcome? A different demographic, I mean even with feminism the odd child still gets born. What are you advocating ataman? Taking women out of the workplace and force her into a home, a husband and a child. As a women myself I would rather we just didn't bother as a species if that is the only answer. Also are you saying your cousin's wife should be banned from work and forced to bear another child ?Do you realise how miserable one's life can be if you are stopped from working and made to have another child.Women can end up feeling lonely.bored, unappreciated and sometimes suicidal...
Feminism in my country has enabled me to become an equal member of society with equal choices to make as a human. My sister is a sort of feminist also a professional woman who has two kids, she shares the upbringing with her husband equally and as such had no problems having kids cos she knew it would not mean forever giving up work or her taking all the strain.
I cannot stress enough what feminism means to women....pls dont talk about it like its a bad thing for humanity that seems a silly suggestion. If women when given the choice dont want so many children, that choice will have to be accepted. To advocate anything else is to subdue women and subject them to a narrowly defined role which historically although some women are happy with, many are not (to the point of desperation )
Edited by New User - 12-Jul-2007 at 10:52
|
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 10:56 |
Originally posted by ataman
If economic conditions are so important, why people who earn more money don't have more children? |
For the reasons I stated. People who earn more money sometimes feel satisfied enough with their life that they don't have children. They view children as a distraction to the way they want to live.
Here, look at these:
http://www.ballantraegolflifestyle.com/
http://www.guildcrest.com/adult.aspx
Do you know what they mean by "adult lifestyle"? They don't mean wild orgies or anything like that. They mean "no kids allowed" - these are whole communities, suburbs for rich people who don't have kids. This has nothing to do with feminism, it's probably mostly men that want to live in these sorts of places. I know I don't particularly like kids and I don't like living around people who have them.
Economic conditions are important as to why working class people have kids and how many they have, they don't determine much about why wealthier people don't have children.
Wow! According to this logic,my job doesn't provide me enough praise and respect and therefore I want to have 5 children. I don't buy this theory. My jobsatisfies me very much, but I stillwant to have more children.Or maybe ratherI want to have more children because my job satifies me very much. Thanks to my job, the level of my self-satisfaction is high. Thanks to my job I am an optimist. As a optimist I plan to have 5 children, because I know that I won't have any problem with providingmy familyenough money in the future. |
I wasn't talking about people who have good jobs that earn them alot of respect - I was talking about people who don't and why they are more likely to have kids than people who do; they gain a bit of social status especially among their own family. They have a motivation you don't have. You're probably just doing it because you enjoy being a parent.
Edited by edgewaters - 12-Jul-2007 at 11:09
|
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 16:39 |
New User, you are tha woman!
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 02:55 |
Originally posted by New User
What are you advocating ataman? |
My dear 'New User'
The knowledge about causes and results is necessary to find a proper way to resolve any problem.
Countries of EU have a problem. Can't you see this? They are developing slower than the rest of the world in terms of the economy and the demography. Thanks to former gerenations, European countries still have quite high position. But it is changing very fast. If European countries will continue its present-day politic, Europa will be soon a periphery of the world. It doeasn't mean only a backwardness. It also means a danger.
The old Roman saying is: 'Do you want a peace? You have to be ready for a war'. European countries want a peace. That's good. I am also the protagonist of a peacefull exsistence. But Europe dooesn't exist in emptiness. There are and will be countries, which might be a danger for Europe.
Now you have a choice - you can avoid future dangers (but it have to cost something today) or you can ignore everything and weakly wait for the future events.
Please, read again what I have already written about the dilemma of Polish nobility in the second half of 17th c.:
'Polish nobility lived in the country which was losing a position of European power. Polish nobles remembered the past very well (they remembered a high position which Poland had until 1648) and knew what is necessary to do to regain old position of the state. They knew that it is necessary to reform the state follow foreign model - the model which limited freedom of individuals, but increased the power of the state.
This model - the absolute power - was terrible for the people who were born and who were living as a free man. But this model - the absolute power - acted very well everywhere it was introduced.
Polish nobility in the second half of 17th c. had to answer if they prefer to lose their freedom, but live in stronger country or to keep their old freedom (and see how their country is losing position). They chose the second option. They chose better life for their generation. It effected in next centries.'
And think, what do you prefer.
If you don't know Polish history, I explain that in 18th c. Poland was a puppet of neighbours and finally it was partitioned. Poland had to pay (and still is paying) a huge cost of the choice of the generation which lived in the second half of 17th c. That generation chose a freedom for themselfs, but simultaneously they chose slavery for their children.
Edited by ataman - 13-Jul-2007 at 02:58
|
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 06:32 |
" There is a widening gulf between how the best- and least-educated
Americans approach marriage and child-rearing. Among the elite
(excluding film stars), the nuclear family is holding up quite well.
Only 4% of the children of mothers with college degrees are born out of
wedlock. And the divorce rate among college-educated women has
plummeted. Of those who first tied the knot between 1975 and 1979, 29%
were divorced within ten years. Among those who first married between
1990 and 1994, only 16.5% were.
At the bottom of the education scale, the picture is reversed. Among
high-school dropouts, the divorce rate rose from 38% for those who
first married in 1975-79 to 46% for those who first married in 1990-94.
Among those with a high school diploma but no college, it rose from 35%
to 38%. And these figures are only part of the story. Many mothers
avoid divorce by never marrying in the first place. The out-of-wedlock
birth rate among women who drop out of high school is 15%. Among
African-Americans, it is a staggering 67%." Source: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9218127 I recommend very very strongly this article (bearing in mind there may be many differences between the US and th EU). Besides, the assumption that richer households have less children is often unsupported. Similarly as shown by the 2006 OECD study Trends and Determinants of Fertility Rates in OECD Countries: The Role of Policies by Anna Cristina dAddio and Marco Mira dErcole (available on the OECD's web site) the richer a country the more children it has (see p.27 and seg). In other words you'd be wrong to assume that the Polish case is share by the rest of the West and that it won't get better. After the end of the depression of the 1990's France's birth rate's increased significantly. Ultimately people should be free to choose for themselves. On the contrary of the Polish nobility case couples can make their own decision and if one wants a lot of kid and the other none it evens out by itself. If a woman wants to work and not have more then two kids she should be free to decide so. If a woman wants more kids she should be free too.
|
I am a free donkey!
|
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus
Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 07:04 |
Do you know what they mean by "adult lifestyle"? They don't mean wild orgies or anything like that. They mean "no kids allowed" - these are whole communities, suburbs for rich people who don't have kids.
If you look further I think you will find these places have an age criteria, 50 up. In the states these "suburbs" are pre retirement homes for people who already had kids.
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
|
|
New User
Shogun
Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 218
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 11:44 |
Quote
"My dear 'New User'
The knowledge about causes and results is necessary to find a proper way to resolve any problem.
Countries of EU have a problem. Can't you see this? They are developing slower than the rest of the world in terms of the economy and the demography. Thanks to former gerenations, European countries still have quite high position. But it is changing very fast. If European countries will continue its present-day politic, Europa will be soon a periphery of the world. It doeasn't mean only a backwardness. It also means a danger.
The old Roman saying is: 'Do you want a peace? You have to be ready for a war'. European countries want a peace. That's good. I am also the protagonist of a peacefull exsistence. But Europe dooesn't exist in emptiness. There are and will be countries, which might be a danger for Europe.
Now you have a choice - you can avoid future dangers (but it have to cost something today) or you can ignore everything and weakly wait for the future events.
Please, read again what I have already written about the dilemma of Polish nobility in the second half of 17th c.:
'Polish nobility lived in the country which was losing a position of European power. Polish nobles remembered the past very well (they remembered a high position which Poland had until 1648) and knew what is necessary to do to regain old position of the state. They knew that it is necessary to reform the state follow foreign model - the model which limited freedom of individuals, but increased the power of the state.
This model - the absolute power - was terrible for the people who were born and who were living as a free man. But this model - the absolute power - acted very well everywhere it was introduced.
Polish nobility in the second half of 17th c. had to answer if they prefer to lose their freedom, but live in stronger country or to keep their old freedom (and see how their country is losing position). They chose the second option. They chose better life for their generation. It effected in next centries.'
And think, what do you prefer.
If you don't know Polish history, I explain that in 18th c. Poland was a puppet of neighbours and finally it was partitioned. Poland had to pay (and still is paying) a huge cost of the choice of the generation which lived in the second half of 17th c. That generation chose a freedom for themselfs, but simultaneously they chose slavery for their children." [/QUOTE]
First off ataman lets drop the endearments we are having a discussion not a date and it makes you sound patronising.
Second what has 17th Poland have to do with birth rates in 21st century Europe, not relevant enough for me. If we start down that track we shall be here forever talking on events from hundreds of years ago.
Third...facts, what are the facts behind this failing economy, where are the solid facts that back up what you say ie that feminism leads directly to decline in Europe.
Fourth..so what would you have done, stop educating women, stop giving them a choice?, force them into families, homes and away from work? Sounds like a dangerous future for women, a decline of Europe would surely have taken place then...
Fifth if it is feminism that is causing falling rates how come in 1964 during the decade of the rise of feminism in Brtain there was the biggest baby boom that century?
Finally Britains birth rates are the highest they have been for nearly 30 years, they are on the increase, so what is the problem there?
Your facts don't seem to stand up to scrutiny, prove me wrong and give some facts (pref from this century) to back up your claims.
Edited by New User - 13-Jul-2007 at 11:48
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 14:27 |
Originally posted by New User
Second what has 17th Poland have to do with birth rates in 21st century Europe, not relevant enough for me. If we start down that track we shall be here forever talking on events from hundreds of years ago. |
Remember that 'historia est magistra vitae' .
Originally posted by New User
Third...facts, what are the facts behind this failing economy, where are the solid facts that back up what you say ie that feminism leads directly to decline in Europe. |
I have already written about influence of feminism on natality rate. The second thing is if the low natality rate leads to decline. Every demograph knows that if natality rate is below 2,1 and if there is no migration, the society will fall earlier or later.
You should know that EU has a natality rate much lower than 2,1.
Originally posted by New User
Fourth..so what would you have done, stop educating women, stop giving them a choice?, force them into families, homes and away from work? Sounds like a dangerous future for women, a decline of Europe would surely have taken place then... |
Every country in EU should find its own the best way to resolve this problem. We are different. We should and can find different denouments. I have already written about possible denoument for Poland here.
Originally posted by New User
Fifth if it is feminism that is causing falling rates how come in 1964 during the decade of the rise of feminism in Brtain there was the biggest baby boom that century? |
Maybe feminism wasn't so strong yet? Anyway, compare increasing of British population in the second half of 20th (when feminism was rising and has finally established) to the second half of 19th c, when feminism was only a dream of some British women.
Originally posted by New User
Finally Britains birth rates are the highest they have been for nearly 30 years, they are on the increase, so what is the problem there? |
Well, first of all, it is not true that 'Britains birth rates are the highest they have been for nearly 30 years' and that 'they are on the increase'. Look at here and here.
Second of all, the natality rate in GB is only 1,66 It means that without an immigration population of GB will decrease.
|
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 16:01 |
Originally posted by red clay
Do you know what they mean by "adult lifestyle"? They don't mean wild orgies or anything like that. They mean "no kids allowed" - these are whole communities, suburbs for rich people who don't have kids.
If you look further I think you will find these places have an age criteria, 50 up. In the states these "suburbs" are pre retirement homes for people who already had kids.
|
Nope, they mean families without kids. It may attract quite a few retirees of course, but it's not strictly for retirees.
There's been a boom in Ontario of "adult lifestyle" accomodation options - the government actually had to intercede and forbid rental units from being "adult lifestyle" as they ruled this was causing a housing problem for low income families.
See here:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/Policies/fampolicy?page=fampolicy-X_.html
|
|
New User
Shogun
Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 218
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 20:25 |
Originally posted by ataman
Originally posted by New User
Finally Britains birth rates are the highest they have been for nearly 30 years, they are on the increase, so what is the problem there? |
Well, first of all, it is not true that 'Britains birth rates are the highest they have been for nearly 30 years' and that 'they are on the increase'. Look at here and here.
Second of all, the natality rate in GB is only 1,66 It means that without an immigration population of GB will decrease. |
Thank you for your links to your previous comments. Your comment that feminism has positive outcome for females but not the country puzzles me, are females not half your country?If they are not happy how can your country be a happy/succesful country?
Your birth rate links are not quite correct however. The first is an estimate for this year, hardly exact the other is January this year. If you check properly you will see the current birthrates in Britain are indeed up.
Edited by New User - 13-Jul-2007 at 20:42
|
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 21:55 |
|
I am a free donkey!
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 23:20 |
Originally posted by New User
Thank you for your links to your previous comments. Your comment that feminism has positive outcome for females but not the country puzzles me, are females not half your country?If they are not happy how can your country be a happy/succesful country? |
Why do you think that the less children women have, the more happy they are? According to this kind of logic, a woman without children should be the most happy.
Well, my mother has 4 children and she says that thanks to us - her childern - she is a happy woman.
Originally posted by New User
Your birth rate links are not quite correct however. The first is an estimate for this year, hardly exact the other is January this year. If you check properly you will see the current birthrates in Britain are indeed up. |
Can you provide correct data / link?
Originally posted by New User
|
Yes, it is interesting. Even if it is more optimistic than many other estimations, it doesn't change too much. Have you notice this:
'The main cause of the decline in the fertility rate appears to be the increase in the numbers of working women'
or this:
'There are a number of actions that could be taken: [...] encouraging a more positive attitude towards family creation as the source of personal happiness and security'
It confirms what I have already written here.
Edited by ataman - 13-Jul-2007 at 23:45
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 23:28 |
Maharbbal,
this is only a problem of propriety .
|
|
eaglecap
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 23:06 |
If feminism is contribtuing to falling birth rates...so what? We complain about imigration and now birth rates?
You are right that you have the right of choice and I suppose it is ok that other people will someday outnumber nice liberal Europeans like yourself. I mean immigrants from places like; Pakistan, North Africa, Iran, Iraq etc. ooops there goes all your rights to do your own thing because, afterall, these people do believe in family values and that children are very important, more than a career and they love having them. I wonder if they share the same values you do about womens rights? You see I really do believe in equal rights for everyone but family and having children are key to a civilizations survival. If we, westerners, do not replace ourselves with children other people will be happy to. America has the same problem and soon the Mexicans will outnumber us but they do believe in family so maybe you do reap what you sow.
You should read these:
|
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 09:49 |
Originally posted by eaglecap
If we, westerners, do not replace ourselves with children other people will be happy to. America has the same problem and soon the Mexicans will outnumber us but they do believe in family so maybe you do reap what you sow. |
I have to say that in Mexico I was suprised I spoke with so many people (of my age) who said they didn't want to have children. (I met one girl though who said she wanted 10 children and she even seemed to be interested in me, amazingly there were even better reasons to keep it off) And although the child/adult ratio is visibily larger than in Europe, birth rates in Mexico have been declining rapidly since 1970, and that includes Mexicans in the United States. And don't forget either that every next generation of immigrants, apart from having less children, will become less integrated in the mainstream culture. In fact 60% of 2nd generation Hispanic immigrants are already more comfortable speaking English than Spanish. Similar things are happening with immigrants from muslim countries in Europe.
Edited by Mixcoatl - 01-Sep-2007 at 10:09
|
|
ulrich von hutten
Tsar
Court Jester
Joined: 01-Nov-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3638
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 10:45 |
Mix a tenfold daddy - a nice imagination.
an you can found the..
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 18:48 |
Originally posted by Mixcoatl
Originally posted by eaglecap
If we, westerners, do not replace ourselves with children other people will be happy to. America has the same problem and soon the Mexicans will outnumber us but they do believe in family so maybe you do reap what you sow. |
I have to say that in Mexico I was suprised I spoke with so many people (of my age) who said they didn't want to have children. (I met one girl though who said she wanted 10 children and she even seemed to be interested in me, amazingly there were even better reasons to keep it off)
And although the child/adult ratio is visibily larger than in Europe, birth rates in Mexico have been declining rapidly since 1970, and that includes Mexicans in the United States. And don't forget either that every next generation of immigrants, apart from having less children, will become less integrated in the mainstream culture. In fact 60% of 2nd generation Hispanic immigrants are already more comfortable speaking English than Spanish. Similar things are happening with immigrants from muslim countries in Europe.
|
Not only in Mexico. Although it may seem ridiculous for Europeans and Americans, all Latin America is right at the point of suffering a major demographic decline. Everywhere, from Brazil to Cuba and from Mexico to Chile, birth rates have been declining since 1970. Population growth is today keep going mainly because old people is dying later.
We expect to have big problems in Chile as well in perhaps 20 years more.
So, the image of the very fertile Mexican immigrants to the U.S. is hidding other realities south of the border that are hard to manage. Even in Mexico, it is known there are whole towns that have become emptied because emigration.
In short, if Latin America doesn't stop emigration we are at risk of suffering a slow depopulation in several regions.
Sorry Americans. Don't worry that much about Latin American immigrants because in the long term only Central Asian and African immigration will be available in the global supply of imigrants. The question is, for how long.
Pinguin
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 00:54 |
Originally posted by pinguin
Originally posted by Mixcoatl
Originally posted by eaglecap
If we, westerners, do not replace ourselves with children other people will be happy to. America has the same problem and soon the Mexicans will outnumber us but they do believe in family so maybe you do reap what you sow. |
I have to say that in Mexico I was suprised I spoke with so many people (of my age) who said they didn't want to have children. (I met one girl though who said she wanted 10 children and she even seemed to be interested in me, amazingly there were even better reasons to keep it off)
And although the child/adult ratio is visibily larger than in Europe, birth rates in Mexico have been declining rapidly since 1970, and that includes Mexicans in the United States. And don't forget either that every next generation of immigrants, apart from having less children, will become less integrated in the mainstream culture. In fact 60% of 2nd generation Hispanic immigrants are already more comfortable speaking English than Spanish. Similar things are happening with immigrants from muslim countries in Europe.
|
Not only in Mexico. Although it may seem ridiculous for Europeans and Americans, all Latin America is right at the point of suffering a major demographic decline. Everywhere, from Brazil to Cuba and from Mexico to Chile, birth rates have been declining since 1970. Population growth is today keep going mainly because old people is dying later.
We expect to have big problems in Chile as well in perhaps 20 years more.
So, the image of the very fertile Mexican immigrants to the U.S. is hidding other realities south of the border that are hard to manage. Even in Mexico, it is known there are whole towns that have become emptied because emigration.
In short, if Latin America doesn't stop emigration we are at risk of suffering a slow depopulation in several regions.
Sorry Americans. Don't worry that much about Latin American immigrants because in the long term only Central Asian and African immigration will be available in the global supply of imigrants. The question is, for how long.
Pinguin |
It seems that Mexico doesn't have a problem with too low fertility rate yet ( it is 2,39 by now). But it might change very fast.
About 20 years ago Polish fertility rate was as high as Mexican today, while today it is among the lowest in the world (1,26)
Edited by ataman - 02-Sep-2007 at 01:00
|
|
Justinian
Chieftain
King of Númenor
Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 13:48 |
In response to the original question of Maharbbal's; the only way I see europe repopulating itself is through immigration. The impression I get is that liberalism much too strongly rooted in european culture now, especially among the youth for there to be any kind of change. At least not in the immediate future. I am most absolutely, positively, a pro family person. The pro's of families by miles outweigh any con's. The way I see it is that families always have some odd ducks, but family is what builds character. Your family is who you are. Nature vs. Nuture right? I would say its something like 50/50. I would be a much different person, and a much worse/more evil person than I am today had it not been for that wisdom and calming influence of family. If you look at today, here in the U.S. and Europe, we live in a fairly liberal society. With that comes positives and negatives. One of the negatives of liberalism is the loss of family in a sense. The positives would be more freedom. If we are going to live in a liberal society, we will have to accept some things that we don't like if we want some of the benefits we do want. Give and take.
One of the larger more problematic issues I think is the capitalistic, greedy society we are becoming. (Referring to the U.S. here, can't speak for europe, never been there) Not only is family being thrown out the window, but so is all sense of morality and human decency. All of the virtues of old are considered bad simply because of the horrible things that were done of centuries past. It seems people think our ancestors had no positive, redeeming traits that are worth following. Sad.
Edited by Justinian - 05-Sep-2007 at 13:57
|
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 19:25 |
Very well said Justinian, the family that nutures respect is the backbone of society.
|
elenos
|
|