"Few academic scientists know anything about the equity crusade. Most have no idea of its power, its scope, and the threats that they may soon be facing. The business community and citizens at large are completely in the dark. This is a quiet revolution. Its weapons are government reports that are rarely seen; amendments to federal bills that almost no one reads; small, unnoticed, but dramatically consequential changes in the regulations regarding government grants; and congressional hearings attended mostly by true believers."
For the record, I'm one of those women who never spent two minutes wondering about whether or not academia and science were gender-biased enterprises. (Can we just do some science please?) I've worked in the corporate world at various times, and I've learned that sometimes you have to kick a little more ass as a woman in order to get things done. (Do I enjoy it? Maybe a little bit, if you've really ticked me off. ;) But science and academia always seemed to me to be more of a meritocracy - if the idea was good, or the talent was there, other factors (like gender) were irrelevant. (Go ahead and tell me how I haven't been in the system long enough to see how naive that statement is.)
The article quoted above goes on and on and on about perceived gender differences as they pertain to the enterprise of science. Finally I had to wonder - Jeez, was I missing something? Was my experience of the scientific establishment just better than other women's? Had I been forced to change aspects of my personality in order to accommodate my desire to do science? (Shake it off!)
For the record, I left academia and the pursuit of science within the academic realm because I wanted more freedom to be "capable of independent, autonomous action" when it came to my work. I was too 'assertive' and 'task-oriented' to pander to the taboos and politics of academic research. I think good science comes from people who like science and who are free to do it. If we're going to examine the enterprise of academic science for flaws, gender-disparity wouldn't be the first, second, or third thing I'd look at. (BTW, the female author of the article also seems to think that the idea of forced gender equity based on stereotypical gender differences is a bad idea.)
The idea that women should be promoted or advanced simply because they are women is insulting to me. Not because I am a woman, and am therefore insulted by the idea that women need this extra help (although now that I think about it...). I am insulted as a scientist who believes in a meritocracy. Title IX-type 'entitlements' diminish the very foundation of a meritocracy. (Go ahead and tell me how unrealistic I am. Go ahead and tell me that the only people who believe in a meritocracy are those who would win in one; everyone else would fight for any extra edge they could get.)
So perhaps we really talking about my idealism here... My idealism is a reflection of how I see myself and my world. Perhaps that makes me a poor choice as a representative of women in science. Perhaps there are compelling arguments for changing the enterprise of science to accommodate a different way of being, but I haven't heard them yet. After all, I haven't given much thought to the whole thing. (Can we just do some science please?)
I realize that this is not a politically-correct opinion, but I've always balked at the idea of sacrificing my integrity at the alter of someone else's ideals. And since I'm representing only myself here, there's not much point in endorsing things I don't believe in.
That's it for this edition of the soapbox. Can I go do some science now?
Friday, June 27, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
Politically Neutral
“It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.” - Admiral Mike Mullen, all-hands letter to military personnel.
That quote appeared in an article recently that gave me pause for thought. Most likely, I got caught up in the parallel to science, which should also be, though perhaps often is not, a politically-neutral enterprise.
It is especially disheartening to me to see scientists engage in public-forum discussions of political candidates. Political ideals are one thing, but the dynamics of a specific campaign or the actions of a specific candidate is quite another, especially when the aim of that discussion is to influence the outcome to reflect your own preference. If you feel 'morally obligated' to discuss a specific candidate, do not use your status as a 'scientist' to bolster the argument, even if it is only implicitly by discussing it in your 'science' blog.
1) Scientists are (hopefully) trained to entertain opposing perspectives. Politics is not a situation where the 'evidence' clearly favors one candidate/party over another, therefore you are arguing from preference, beliefs, and ideology rather than evidence. Join the ranks of everyone else.
2) The argument that scientists are somehow more 'enlightened' or intelligent than the average person and therefore have an obligation to influence the debate is crap. Scientists are just as much a product of their past experience and exposure as everyone else. There are conservative scientists and liberal scientists. Being a 'scientist' doesn't give you superior morality either, so don't presume that the specific contents of your education make you a better judge of right or wrong-ness of any specific situation. Argue your position on equal footing with everyone else, and win by the strength of your argument rather than by claiming status as a 'scientist', 'academic', or 'intellectual'. (Yeah, unfortunately people do give more weight to arguments made by those with certain status. That doesn't mean you have to take advantage of it. Unless, of course, you crave that kind of power...)
3) Discussing people rather than ideas is always a step down from the most productive level of discourse. We all engage in it from time to time, of course, but we should all hope to aspire to something better. Especially when representing 'science' to the outside world.
4) I don't presume that my endorsement of a specific candidate would actually help their candidacy. If I express support for a specific candidate, people associate my actions with that candidate. And we know how people feel about being associated with my actions. ;) Personally, I'd like to see more people refrain from endorsing candidates unless they have been specifically asked to do so by the candidate.
That's it for this edition of the soapbox. I think I'll get back to that 'summer vacation' plan I had. ;)
That quote appeared in an article recently that gave me pause for thought. Most likely, I got caught up in the parallel to science, which should also be, though perhaps often is not, a politically-neutral enterprise.
It is especially disheartening to me to see scientists engage in public-forum discussions of political candidates. Political ideals are one thing, but the dynamics of a specific campaign or the actions of a specific candidate is quite another, especially when the aim of that discussion is to influence the outcome to reflect your own preference. If you feel 'morally obligated' to discuss a specific candidate, do not use your status as a 'scientist' to bolster the argument, even if it is only implicitly by discussing it in your 'science' blog.
1) Scientists are (hopefully) trained to entertain opposing perspectives. Politics is not a situation where the 'evidence' clearly favors one candidate/party over another, therefore you are arguing from preference, beliefs, and ideology rather than evidence. Join the ranks of everyone else.
2) The argument that scientists are somehow more 'enlightened' or intelligent than the average person and therefore have an obligation to influence the debate is crap. Scientists are just as much a product of their past experience and exposure as everyone else. There are conservative scientists and liberal scientists. Being a 'scientist' doesn't give you superior morality either, so don't presume that the specific contents of your education make you a better judge of right or wrong-ness of any specific situation. Argue your position on equal footing with everyone else, and win by the strength of your argument rather than by claiming status as a 'scientist', 'academic', or 'intellectual'. (Yeah, unfortunately people do give more weight to arguments made by those with certain status. That doesn't mean you have to take advantage of it. Unless, of course, you crave that kind of power...)
3) Discussing people rather than ideas is always a step down from the most productive level of discourse. We all engage in it from time to time, of course, but we should all hope to aspire to something better. Especially when representing 'science' to the outside world.
4) I don't presume that my endorsement of a specific candidate would actually help their candidacy. If I express support for a specific candidate, people associate my actions with that candidate. And we know how people feel about being associated with my actions. ;) Personally, I'd like to see more people refrain from endorsing candidates unless they have been specifically asked to do so by the candidate.
That's it for this edition of the soapbox. I think I'll get back to that 'summer vacation' plan I had. ;)
Thursday, June 19, 2008
All Dressed In White
"There is no subject on which more dangerous nonsense is talked and thought than marriage."
In the wake of Best Friend's wedding, and after having discussed her upcoming wedding with Good Friend, I was moved to read All Dressed in White: The Irresistible Rise of the American Wedding, by Carol Wallace (2004).
I had expected Best Friend to buck tradition when it came to her wedding, yet as the event got closer, so did she - to almost all aspects of a 'traditional' wedding. (With the notable exception of her choice of officiant. ;) 'Wait a minute, why are you doing this?', I thought to myself several times, but of course as a supportive friend I held my tongue.
Good Friend had already made a life with her now-fiance, including the co-purchase of a home. Their decision to marry came as a result of her getting pregnant. 'But you were so anti-'the institution of marriage', I thought to myself, but as a supportive friend, of course I held my tongue.
It goes without saying that most of the trappings of a wedding are unrelated to the actual success of a marriage, and should be, though perhaps are not always, unrelated to the decision to get married. Yet the talk and the angst and the stress is almost all about the wedding. With so many marriages ending in divorce, the wedding seems to be one of the least important things to stress over. (Don't throw things at me yet; I'm going to make a point here.)
With the erosion of almost every reason to need to get married, now more than ever marriage represents a choice. Yet the institution of marriage has yet to change to reflect the changes in science and society. (And it probably won't change for quite some time.) Those who choose to marry are still forced to choose 'til death do us part', and that seems to be a commitment that many people have trouble keeping. Nor does it seem to be a commitment whose keeping the rest of society is all that concerned with.
Any institution with a 50+ percent rate of failure seems to be crying out for modification. One of the things that stuck with me the longest through all my viewings of the various incarnations of Star Trek (and there were many viewings) was the idea of contract marriages. 'Now there's a smart piece of projected sociological evolution', I thought. A contract marriage (though never explained in detail in any of the episodes I watched) presumably conferred all the legal benefits of 'married' status upon a couple but for a predetermined, limited duration. Since the contract would expire, presumably provisions were included in it for what would happen when the contract was dissolved. Instead of staring down 'til death do us part', couples presumably acknowledge that change is inevitable, and made the commitment that seemed most appropriate for them given the status of their lives, careers, etc. The commitment became more explicit, as couples were forced to consider ahead of time how they would relate to each other if the decision was made not to renew the contract.
The more I thought about this idea, the more I liked it. Instead of facing the social stigma of saying 'I've been divorced three times', for example, a person could say 'I've successfully completed two three-year marriage contracts and a five-year contract.'
With the option to marry so many times now available, the decision to commit to a marriage of a greater duration would presumably revolve largely around the commitment to parenting children. In this vision of the future that I had drifted into, these were the marriages that would result in a celebration that most reflects the weddings of today. A 'wedding' would morph into a celebration of fertility/commitment to a larger goal beyond the desires of the two individuals. The families would come together to greet the first child, as well as to celebrate the couple's commitment to parenting. Society's recognition of the importance of a consistant, stable home for a child would be reflected in the fact that the commitment to this was now the primary cause for large-scale celebration.
(Insert happy visions of Futureland here.)
I haven't put a whole lot of thought into the potential drawbacks of this vision of the future of marriage. Feel free to share any drawbacks that you can think of. This hypothetical aspect of the future may yet end up in a science fiction book one day, by which time I'm sure I'll have given it more thought. ;)
In the wake of Best Friend's wedding, and after having discussed her upcoming wedding with Good Friend, I was moved to read All Dressed in White: The Irresistible Rise of the American Wedding, by Carol Wallace (2004).
I had expected Best Friend to buck tradition when it came to her wedding, yet as the event got closer, so did she - to almost all aspects of a 'traditional' wedding. (With the notable exception of her choice of officiant. ;) 'Wait a minute, why are you doing this?', I thought to myself several times, but of course as a supportive friend I held my tongue.
Good Friend had already made a life with her now-fiance, including the co-purchase of a home. Their decision to marry came as a result of her getting pregnant. 'But you were so anti-'the institution of marriage', I thought to myself, but as a supportive friend, of course I held my tongue.
It goes without saying that most of the trappings of a wedding are unrelated to the actual success of a marriage, and should be, though perhaps are not always, unrelated to the decision to get married. Yet the talk and the angst and the stress is almost all about the wedding. With so many marriages ending in divorce, the wedding seems to be one of the least important things to stress over. (Don't throw things at me yet; I'm going to make a point here.)
With the erosion of almost every reason to need to get married, now more than ever marriage represents a choice. Yet the institution of marriage has yet to change to reflect the changes in science and society. (And it probably won't change for quite some time.) Those who choose to marry are still forced to choose 'til death do us part', and that seems to be a commitment that many people have trouble keeping. Nor does it seem to be a commitment whose keeping the rest of society is all that concerned with.
Any institution with a 50+ percent rate of failure seems to be crying out for modification. One of the things that stuck with me the longest through all my viewings of the various incarnations of Star Trek (and there were many viewings) was the idea of contract marriages. 'Now there's a smart piece of projected sociological evolution', I thought. A contract marriage (though never explained in detail in any of the episodes I watched) presumably conferred all the legal benefits of 'married' status upon a couple but for a predetermined, limited duration. Since the contract would expire, presumably provisions were included in it for what would happen when the contract was dissolved. Instead of staring down 'til death do us part', couples presumably acknowledge that change is inevitable, and made the commitment that seemed most appropriate for them given the status of their lives, careers, etc. The commitment became more explicit, as couples were forced to consider ahead of time how they would relate to each other if the decision was made not to renew the contract.
The more I thought about this idea, the more I liked it. Instead of facing the social stigma of saying 'I've been divorced three times', for example, a person could say 'I've successfully completed two three-year marriage contracts and a five-year contract.'
With the option to marry so many times now available, the decision to commit to a marriage of a greater duration would presumably revolve largely around the commitment to parenting children. In this vision of the future that I had drifted into, these were the marriages that would result in a celebration that most reflects the weddings of today. A 'wedding' would morph into a celebration of fertility/commitment to a larger goal beyond the desires of the two individuals. The families would come together to greet the first child, as well as to celebrate the couple's commitment to parenting. Society's recognition of the importance of a consistant, stable home for a child would be reflected in the fact that the commitment to this was now the primary cause for large-scale celebration.
(Insert happy visions of Futureland here.)
I haven't put a whole lot of thought into the potential drawbacks of this vision of the future of marriage. Feel free to share any drawbacks that you can think of. This hypothetical aspect of the future may yet end up in a science fiction book one day, by which time I'm sure I'll have given it more thought. ;)
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The New Man
"But those who have not given up hope can succeed only if they are hardheaded realists, shed all illusions, and fully appreciate the difficulties."
Man has probably been visualizing a 'better' or idealized version of himself since he was capable of appreciating the difference between himself and others. The Templeton Foundation has devoted the June 2008 issue of its online magazine Metanexus to discussing transhumanism. The origin of the word 'transhumanism' is explained in the lead article as having arisen in 1975 and meaning "Man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature." At that time the word 'transhumanism' didn't carry the sense of technological dependency that it does today. Today's image of transhumanism is almost entirely focused on extending our potential via technology. But is that the best, or even the most likely, way that man will 'transcend' himself?
It seems to us now that the technological transhumanist vision is inevitable. We live in a time when the idea of bio-implants hardly gives pause for thought. Presumably the nature and capabilities of these implants will continue to grow with time. But does this represent our only hope for 'evolved' man? Is our next evolutionary break destined to be Homo cyberneticus?
It is almost a guarantee that, barring a spectacular environmental disaster or alien intervention, our next evolutionary step will come about as a result of our own efforts to advance science and technology. But what if the search for the secrets of consciousness that would enable Homo cyberneticus turned up something that pushed man in another direction altogether?
Man has probably been visualizing a 'better' or idealized version of himself since he was capable of appreciating the difference between himself and others. The Templeton Foundation has devoted the June 2008 issue of its online magazine Metanexus to discussing transhumanism. The origin of the word 'transhumanism' is explained in the lead article as having arisen in 1975 and meaning "Man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature." At that time the word 'transhumanism' didn't carry the sense of technological dependency that it does today. Today's image of transhumanism is almost entirely focused on extending our potential via technology. But is that the best, or even the most likely, way that man will 'transcend' himself?
It seems to us now that the technological transhumanist vision is inevitable. We live in a time when the idea of bio-implants hardly gives pause for thought. Presumably the nature and capabilities of these implants will continue to grow with time. But does this represent our only hope for 'evolved' man? Is our next evolutionary break destined to be Homo cyberneticus?
It is almost a guarantee that, barring a spectacular environmental disaster or alien intervention, our next evolutionary step will come about as a result of our own efforts to advance science and technology. But what if the search for the secrets of consciousness that would enable Homo cyberneticus turned up something that pushed man in another direction altogether?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
The Need for Speed
Lo, tho she knew the truth of it, she searched still for a force greater than the mind yet capable of being understood by it.
I feel the need to expound on some things that I said yesterday...
[DISCLAIMER: I am a philosopher by necessity, not by trade, so if someone else has said any of this better, please drop me a comment and let me know who so that I may go and read that material.]
My struggle to adopt a significantly different, yet more scientifically accurate, worldview (and you know which one I'm talking about) inevitably led to a whole slew of questioning about what meaning can be derived from our existence, given the exotic new nature of that existence. It also led to a search for discussion on how to define ethics and morality when the nature of what it meant to be human had radically changed. Science forced me to accept the scientific aspects of that worldview, but it did not completely prepare me to live within that worldview.
The point I'm getting at is this - if we as scientists are going to ask people to relinquish the definitions of self and place in the universe that they have built their psychological constructs around, then we must either 1) be prepared for a massive fallout of depression, suicide, solipsistic withdrawal, etc., or 2) we must be prepared to engage them with the best ideas and discussions on ethics and morality and meaning of life that man (past and present) has to offer. The latter is no longer within the scope of science, therefore it would behoove scientists (and anyone who would like to see our collective consciousness move away from all forms of superstitious, out-dated thinking) to engage philosophers, humanists, and even open-minded clergy in dialogues about how the changes that science is foisting upon us at a record pace with respect to redefinitions of the mind, self, and place in the universe can be matched to man's need for moral guidance and new horizons. (I think one of our friends was trying to make this point a few months ago, but I wasn't getting it then.)
It's difficult to say from where these perceived psychological needs of man arise, and where, for instance, they might fit on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. At this point, I'm mostly generalizing from my own experience with adopting a significantly different worldview. Scientists are not trained to address these needs, but neither should they assume that such needs are unimportant and not worth addressing. They are very real, and unless scientists are willing to spend some of their time engaging non-scientists in dialogue on non-scientific topics, these needs may result in a further rupture between science and religion. I think that the last thing that any scientist wants is to see a full-scale rejection of science by people who prefer having their psychological needs addressed by religion to accepting scientific evidence for another view of the world and their place in it.
'That would never happen', you say. But you are wrong. It does happen; I've seen it, repeatedly. People are unwilling to accept or engage another, more scientific, worldview because they perceive that it means leaving behind everything that they are currently getting from religion. 'I will be dead before this becomes the dominant paradigm, so why should I struggle to accept it now?' is also something I've heard. Perhaps some scientists and academics are a little too isolated from the larger world to appreciate the degree to which this kind of thinking presents an obstacle to the progress of science and alternative worldviews.
I hold out great hope for mind-brain science to allow us to find a better definition of what it means to be human. But science alone will not succeed in transmitting such a vision to humanity at large. If scientists truly wish for a 'shift in the culture war', then perhaps it would behoove us to find allies with the knowledge and training that we lack...
I feel the need to expound on some things that I said yesterday...
[DISCLAIMER: I am a philosopher by necessity, not by trade, so if someone else has said any of this better, please drop me a comment and let me know who so that I may go and read that material.]
My struggle to adopt a significantly different, yet more scientifically accurate, worldview (and you know which one I'm talking about) inevitably led to a whole slew of questioning about what meaning can be derived from our existence, given the exotic new nature of that existence. It also led to a search for discussion on how to define ethics and morality when the nature of what it meant to be human had radically changed. Science forced me to accept the scientific aspects of that worldview, but it did not completely prepare me to live within that worldview.
The point I'm getting at is this - if we as scientists are going to ask people to relinquish the definitions of self and place in the universe that they have built their psychological constructs around, then we must either 1) be prepared for a massive fallout of depression, suicide, solipsistic withdrawal, etc., or 2) we must be prepared to engage them with the best ideas and discussions on ethics and morality and meaning of life that man (past and present) has to offer. The latter is no longer within the scope of science, therefore it would behoove scientists (and anyone who would like to see our collective consciousness move away from all forms of superstitious, out-dated thinking) to engage philosophers, humanists, and even open-minded clergy in dialogues about how the changes that science is foisting upon us at a record pace with respect to redefinitions of the mind, self, and place in the universe can be matched to man's need for moral guidance and new horizons. (I think one of our friends was trying to make this point a few months ago, but I wasn't getting it then.)
It's difficult to say from where these perceived psychological needs of man arise, and where, for instance, they might fit on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. At this point, I'm mostly generalizing from my own experience with adopting a significantly different worldview. Scientists are not trained to address these needs, but neither should they assume that such needs are unimportant and not worth addressing. They are very real, and unless scientists are willing to spend some of their time engaging non-scientists in dialogue on non-scientific topics, these needs may result in a further rupture between science and religion. I think that the last thing that any scientist wants is to see a full-scale rejection of science by people who prefer having their psychological needs addressed by religion to accepting scientific evidence for another view of the world and their place in it.
'That would never happen', you say. But you are wrong. It does happen; I've seen it, repeatedly. People are unwilling to accept or engage another, more scientific, worldview because they perceive that it means leaving behind everything that they are currently getting from religion. 'I will be dead before this becomes the dominant paradigm, so why should I struggle to accept it now?' is also something I've heard. Perhaps some scientists and academics are a little too isolated from the larger world to appreciate the degree to which this kind of thinking presents an obstacle to the progress of science and alternative worldviews.
I hold out great hope for mind-brain science to allow us to find a better definition of what it means to be human. But science alone will not succeed in transmitting such a vision to humanity at large. If scientists truly wish for a 'shift in the culture war', then perhaps it would behoove us to find allies with the knowledge and training that we lack...
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Science and Religion
"It is no paradox but a great truth borne out by all history that human culture advances only through the clash of opposites."
I was intrigued by the two-page ad for the Templeton Foundation that was in this month's issue of Scientific American. Then I read this, which speaks of science with a reverence reminiscent of that regularly reserved for religion. Then I saw this, so guess what? Now you're gonna get my two cents, which can be summed up by the following story...
The other day I overheard a woman talking about how her painful struggles with infertility had been a part of God's plan that led her to find two beautiful boys from another country to adopt. She couldn't understand why God would let her struggle so with infertility when she so desperately wanted children. When she later found the two boys to adopt, she connected all these events in the only way she knew how - as a part of a larger plan by a benevolent God.
While eavesdropping on this story, I was thinking 'Even if I could give this woman a scientific, logical, testable explanation for everything that has happened to her, I could not (at this point) give her the sense of comfort and reassurance that she derived from her God's-larger-plan construct.' And that is why scientists cannot afford to be ignorant or dismissive of religion. Science can provide alternative explanations for events and phenomena that many people attribute to God, and that may weaken someone's need for a God-did-it explanation. But religion also provides a structure that defines morality, creates community, and fulfills basic psychological needs to understand the meaning of it all.
I'm not defending religion in the sense that I think its current structures are without flaws - far from it. I'm simply pointing out that alternative explanations (such as evolution instead of creation) may never be enough to cause people to abandon religion. Religion provides too many other things that science is not in a position to provide. My personal hope is that scientific advances can push people toward a spiritual view that encompasses a greater degree of individual responsibility. I believe happiness and meaning are easier to find when you look to yourself as the source of your own happiness or unhappiness.
To sum up this brief foray into a loaded topic, let me leave you with this question...
If God were not a necessary part of the explanation for the success of the mechanics of prayer, would that make you any more or less compassionate in engaging those mechanics on behalf of others?
I was intrigued by the two-page ad for the Templeton Foundation that was in this month's issue of Scientific American. Then I read this, which speaks of science with a reverence reminiscent of that regularly reserved for religion. Then I saw this, so guess what? Now you're gonna get my two cents, which can be summed up by the following story...
The other day I overheard a woman talking about how her painful struggles with infertility had been a part of God's plan that led her to find two beautiful boys from another country to adopt. She couldn't understand why God would let her struggle so with infertility when she so desperately wanted children. When she later found the two boys to adopt, she connected all these events in the only way she knew how - as a part of a larger plan by a benevolent God.
While eavesdropping on this story, I was thinking 'Even if I could give this woman a scientific, logical, testable explanation for everything that has happened to her, I could not (at this point) give her the sense of comfort and reassurance that she derived from her God's-larger-plan construct.' And that is why scientists cannot afford to be ignorant or dismissive of religion. Science can provide alternative explanations for events and phenomena that many people attribute to God, and that may weaken someone's need for a God-did-it explanation. But religion also provides a structure that defines morality, creates community, and fulfills basic psychological needs to understand the meaning of it all.
I'm not defending religion in the sense that I think its current structures are without flaws - far from it. I'm simply pointing out that alternative explanations (such as evolution instead of creation) may never be enough to cause people to abandon religion. Religion provides too many other things that science is not in a position to provide. My personal hope is that scientific advances can push people toward a spiritual view that encompasses a greater degree of individual responsibility. I believe happiness and meaning are easier to find when you look to yourself as the source of your own happiness or unhappiness.
To sum up this brief foray into a loaded topic, let me leave you with this question...
If God were not a necessary part of the explanation for the success of the mechanics of prayer, would that make you any more or less compassionate in engaging those mechanics on behalf of others?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)