A media magic trick – making abused boys vanish


Though they made for grim reading, I was not especially surprised to see press reports this week about the European Commission-funded research into relationship violence among 13 to 17-year-olds. It is well-established that teenagers and young people are, by some distance, at greatest risk. A study in 2009 found that one in three teenage girls had experienced sexual abuse by a boyfriend and one in four had suffered physical violence. So the latest headlines that four in ten English girls had been coerced into sexual activity are depressing but far from revelatory.

Nor was I particularly surprised by the gender-focus of the news coverage. It is a plain fact that a lot of research into partner violence is under the auspices of a ‘violence against women and girls’ agenda. The only reference to boys in the Guardian’s report, to take only one example out of many, was this: “a high proportion of teenage boys regularly viewed pornography, and one in five harboured extremely negative attitudes towards women.”

The surprise finally came when I read the research briefing concerned. It details the latest findings of the STIR research programme, a major survey of 4,500 young people from five different European countries. The teenagers had been asked about their experiences of five different types of relationship violence. Let me quote from the headline summaries of each

Online emotional violence: The overall rate for experiencing some form of online violence was around 40% for both young women and young men in each country.

Face to face emotional violence: Rates for experiencing face-to face violence were more wide-ranging than rates for online violence. Across the five countries, between 31% and 59% of young women and 19% and 41% of young men reported experiencing this form of behaviour from a partner.

Physical violence: In each country between 9% and 22% of young women and 8% to 15% of young men reported some form of physical violence.

Sexual coercion/violence: Rates for sexual violence ranged from 17% to 41% for young women and 9% to 25% for young men.

Overall incidence: Between 53% and 66% of young women and 32% and 69% of young men reported experiencing at least one form of violence.

The study did indeed find the largest gender differences amongst the English and Norwegian samples, but prominently includes the following caveat:

As European research on adult domestic violence (DV) has shown, the willingness of participants to report their experiences is often heavily influenced by how DV is viewed in different countries (FRA ). Countries with higher gender equality and greater DV awareness also often report the highest levels of DV.

So, what this research is showing is an intricate web of physical, sexual and emotional abuse happening within young relationships, with significant numbers of both girls and boys being victimised. This is not to say the experiences of girls and boys are identical. Notably, the research did find that girls were much more likely than boys to report negative impacts (eg being shocked, frightened or hurt) as a result of the abuse, although the authors do not appear to have considered the possibility that boys may be more inclined to put on a brave, macho face when asked that question.

A few quibbles aside, this research is good and important. The reporting of it, on the other hand, is absolutely woeful. As always, I must stress that I have no issue whatsoever with researching, acknowledging and addressing the scale and nature of violence against women and girls. We should be shocked by the numbers of young girls who are beaten, abused, exploited and raped. At the same time, we should realise that this is not the whole story and that girls are not the only victims. The boys participated in this research. Their experiences were reported in the briefing paper. Then when it came to publicising the findings in the media, those boys simply vanished.

When talking about adult survivors of relationship or sexual violence, I and others have often talked about the cruelty of sidelining, marginalising and erasing male victims – not just from services and support, but from the political and media narrative. There is a marked and harmful impact when a victim picks up on the message that society really doesn’t care. To send that message to grown adults is hurtful and unnecessary. To send the same message to children as young as 13 is downright abhorrent.

Comments

  1. says

    Then when it came to publicising the findings in the media, those boys simply vanished.

    I really don’t think the one example you cited supports such a sweeping statement. This article seemed to be primarily concerned with policy implications for sex-ed; and the policies recommended — more teaching about healthy relationships — seemed both aimed at both sexes, and beneficial to boys as well as girls. If schools really do adopt a policy to “challenge stereotypical behaviour and attitudes in boys,” then that could well end up exposing attitudes that lead to abuse of boys as well as of girls.

    All in all, the Guardian article was far from perfect; but it’s a stretch to say it “erased” abuse of boys entirely. It was just a standard mediocre news article that didn’t do any more cropping or oversimplification than mainstream news normally does when reporting scientific issues.

  2. Carnation says

    @ Ally

    In a nutshell: conspiracy or cock-up? Or should I say, conspiracy, or lazy journalism not inclined to look much beyond the headlines?

  3. Tolst says

    @Raging Bee: Their idea of “challeng[ing] stereotypical behaviour and attitudes in boys” is the same men as the abusers BS that’s been spewed for years. Their idea of challenging stereotypes is to fix those damned problematic boys so that girls don’t get hurt, and if boys benefit along the way then that’s just a happy coincidence.

  4. Ally Fogg says

    @Carnation

    Here is how I think it works.

    A university press officer has to send out a press release. S/he considers what is most likely to fly with editors, who are in turn considering what is most likely to fly with their readers.

    By and large, media consumers like to read / see / hear items that tally with their beliefs about the world rather than challenge or contradict them.

    In this case, people are reasonably comfortable with a narrative that says sweet, innocent little schoolgirls are being abused and exploited by sex-crazed, violent boys. Consequently that is the spin that most benefits everyone involved.

    So in answer to your question, not really cock-up or conspiracy, just a natural consequence of a media culture that is more interested in gaining sales, clicks, listeners, whatever than in informing people about the truth of the story.

  5. says

    Well, yeah, the boys do have problems that need to be fixed. One of those problems is a lot of stereotypes, of both boys and girls, that lead to abusive behaviors in various ways. And debunking those stereotypes won’t just help boys to become less abusive — it’ll also help boys to resist or avoid being victimized, and to avoid victimizing other boys.

  6. says

    Raging Bee: “If schools really do adopt a policy to “challenge stereotypical behaviour and attitudes in boys,” then that could well end up exposing attitudes that lead to abuse of boys as well as of girls.”

    This is a pretty back handed approach to the problem. How is erasing the problem going to lead to exposition? After all, it is articles like these which lead to the policies which “challenge stereotypical behaviour and attitudes in boys” …. and do nothing to “challenge stereotypical behaviour and attitudes in GIRLS” since these articles simply stereotype boys as the problem.

    Raging Bee: “All in all, the Guardian article was far from perfect; but it’s a stretch to say it “erased” abuse of boys entirely. ”

    So where was the reporting Ally noted??? Was it there or not? If not, then yes surely it was erased entirely.

    The point: If our goal is truly an egalitarian world, we can’t keep making this out to be a gender issue when clearly it is not. Likewise, if our goal is truly an egalitarian world, we can’t keep painting men/boys as the problem and women/girls as the victims. Instead, we need to address ALL problems and not engage in some sort of benevolent sexism simply because – to some people – it just feels better. That means talking about this problems and ceasing with the fundamentally flawed belief that by helping women/girls alone, we will see trickle down help coming to men/boys. After all, if our goal is truly an egalitarian world, boys/men shouldn’t need to rely on trickle down help. If anything, it is this sort of white washing erasure that will lead to precisely the opposite.

  7. says

    ” And debunking those stereotypes won’t just help boys to become less abusive — it’ll also help boys to resist or avoid being victimized, and to avoid victimizing other boys.”

    But painting boys as violent, abusive thugs (and girls as innocent and pure) is just another form of stereotyping. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    Again, if our goal is an egalitarian society, then boys/men shouldn’t need to rely on trickle down help or recognition.

  8. says

    This is a pretty back handed approach to the problem.

    Bullshit. That was the approach used in my junior-high-school sex-ed classes, and it wasn’t “backhanded” at all.

    How is erasing the problem going to lead to exposition?

    How do you manage to equate “challenging stereotypes” with “erasing the problem?”

    But painting boys as violent, abusive thugs (and girls as innocent and pure) is just another form of stereotyping.

    No one is doing that at all, either here or in the Guardian article. All you’re doing is repeating that tired old dodge about how educating boys insults boys by assuming they need to be educated.

    And besides, we’re advocating a policy of debunking stereotypes that encourage boys to be violent and abusive — how is that “painting boys as violent, abusive thugs?”

    The point: If our goal is truly an egalitarian world, we can’t keep making this out to be a gender issue when clearly it is not.

    It clearly IS a gender issue, moron. Just because both boys and girls are victims of something, doesn’t mean it’s “not a gender issue.”

    And kindly cut the “trickle-down help” rhetoric — there’s nothing “trickle-down” about the effects of a sex-ed program that honestly discusses relationship issues and bad stereotypes. Again, I know this from experience — I had a pretty decent sex-ed class in junior-high, as the Guardian article recommends; and abuse of boys was not “erased” and the benefit to boys was not “trickle-down.” That phrase is totally inapplicable here, and it’s obvious you’re only using it for its emotional baggage.

  9. says

    If our goal is truly an egalitarian world…

    …we will not pig-headedly pretend that real and significant differences don’t exist, just to pretend we’re being “egalitarian.”

  10. says

    Again, if our goal is an egalitarian society, then boys/men shouldn’t need to rely on trickle down help or recognition.

    Funny thing — that’s exactly what a lot of MRAs advocate for male victims of violence: steal funding from battered-women’s programs to fund programs for battered men. The alternative, of course, is to increase overall funding, and thus taxes, for both groups; but that would be tyranny, amirite?

  11. mildlymagnificent says

    But painting boys as violent, abusive thugs (and girls as innocent and pure) is just another form of stereotyping. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    There’s no need to say stuff like this because teaching couldwouldshould be focused on much more fundamental attitudes and presumptions leading to that kind of stereotype.

    You get across the idea that everyone, boys and girls alike, will be more or less interested in sexual activity at various times. Even if you’re in a relationship, there can be no presumption that either partner is ready, willing and able to engage in sexual activity at any given time. When both of you are keen at the same time, that’s a good thing. When one of you is not interested, do something else.

  12. 123454321 says

    Ally said: “…. just a natural consequence of a media culture that is more interested in gaining sales, clicks, listeners, whatever than in informing people about the truth of the story.”

    Absolutely fucking true! The media is now awash with culturally embedded values which have been formed around principles relating to what sells best and what is, and what isn’t, socially acceptable. Playing the female = victim and male = perpetrator tactical game is a sure-fire way of protecting your commercial strategy because it’s far safer to bully, ridicule or ignore men and their issues than it is for females. It’s far more lucrative to use female-friendly strategies (regardless of whether we’re talking about presenting facts or writing fiction, and regardless of which type of public communicative format) because commercial corporations involved with sales of media know men still purchase the material (or at least won’t fucking complain about it like big crybabies). Women, on the other hand (especially feminists) give businesses fucking hell -Sun/Nuts etc. when they’re supposedly challenged, attacked or ignored and use their collaborative, crybaby tactics to close businesses down. All of this means that the levels of acceptability between male and female in terms of what you can get away with, and what sells, are vastly disparate. In which case, today’s media is either completely fucking pro-female and anti-male or they don’t give a fucking shit about men – a bit like how many must feel about Raging Bee’s posts!

  13. Marduk says

    This was not really intended as thorough-going social research and its not a surprise that education is viewed as the answer, its actually a requirements generation exercise for an educational iPhone app primarily concerned with online conduct (revenge porn, sexting, cyberbulling etc).

    The gendered coverage here is not an accident, a simplification or anything else, it is clearly the deliberate construction of a narrative. What is particularly wrong with this is that it takes place in a news piece written by a news journalist fresh from covering the Charlie Hebdo events, it is not an opinion piece where this kind of thing is more acceptable. We can only speculate as to why this has happened. I think the explanation is not one of conspiracy, merely cultural climate and generally poor editing at the Guardian (did anyone notice last week there was briefly a “Guardian Pick” in a piece on male suicide that combined whataboutery with the suggestion that more men should kill themselves…what got it through was that it used the appropriate keywords and language to conceal its payload, there is some evidence on Twitter it was deliberately written by a troll to see how guillible they’d be).

    As to why its damaging two reasons:
    1. As a society we persistently misunderstand the phenomenon of violence. Its as simple as that. The issue is not “whataboutery”, its that the experiences of the genders cannot be understood in isolation because we know that intimate violence simply doesn’t work that way (much as this invites the ire of the ideologues whose theories have been repeatedly proven to be false). If nothing else, we know it has to involve two people or more! How we understand intimate partner violence then informs what we do about it and the present paradigm here is completely ineffective, so there is clearly a need to reconsider this urgently.
    2. We know from the very few scholars who have ever been funded to research this (and its virtually impossible to get for obvious reasons) is that female abusers are encouraged and emboldened in their abuse by one-sided narratives and campaigns. Indeed, if we want to talk about core educational issues, a majority of male abusers know what they are doing. This may of course lead to denial and excuse making. The majority of female abusers are in fact not aware that they are abusers, as was demonstrated in a certain notorious piece in the Guardian where the author denied the possibility that a woman could ever be an abuser and in the same paragraph described herself has having had a career of being “slap-happy” and that it was perfectly normal for women to assault men on a regular basis as part of their adult development. You know there is a problem when you aren’t even recognising the issues well enough to even reach a state of denial. The most effective public campaign ever, that reduced the number of female victims the most was one that was piloted in Canada and told women to stop hitting men. Apparently if you don’t hit someone, they stop hitting you back. Unfortunately, the implication that this could be “victim blaming” (which it is of course not unless you are committed to men-bad, women-good as an ideology) means that this obviously won’t be followed up. My guess is that a campaign targetting both genders would hit the ball out of the park but it will never be tried.

    The other issues to me are much less important but really RagingBee, “stealing” funding? Was Title IX stealing funding? Are immigrants “stealing” jobs? Come off it, when you’re engaging in the rhetoric of racists and fascists its time to take a look in the mirror. You sound more involved with defending your “team” (jobs for the girls?) than dealing with the actual problem.

  14. Marduk says

    Also worth noting that it is well-established that (1) younger couples are more likely to have violence as part of their relationship (2) young couples are the group most overwhelmingly likely to be involved in mutual/reciprocal/diadic patterns of violence (low bound estimate is 50% rising to 71%) with equal rates of perpetration, intensity and initiation across genders.

    So treating this as a single gender issue is particularly inappropriate here. It is far more appropriate to think of this in terms of being to do with young people in relationships, their (in)abilities and (in)competence to manage interpersonal relationships and the dynamics of couples in youthful relationships rather than structural accounts of patriarchy as has been effectively defaulted to here. The positive news is that this suggests a range of new practical interventions we could try instead of lecturing teenagers about 1970s social theories. New ideas that will of course go unheeded because apparently its “stealing” to question what we are currently doing and know doesn’t work.

  15. Marduk says

    On reflection, probably the simplest way of understanding this is that there are two competing theories of DV.

    The first theory is the feminist theory (classically, Dobash & Dobash 1979). The second theory is what we call ‘violence theory’ for wont of a better term. Its really more of a default non-theory as much as anything. The critical dividing line is that feminist theory asserts that domestic violence is a unique suis generis phenomenon that cannot be thought of in terms of or as related to any other form of violence in society or even in history given it is caused ONLY by structural patriarchy. The violence theory asserts that domestic violence is just another form of human violence in the rich tapestry of humans being horrid and that people commit it for much the same reasons they commit any other form of violence with anyone else. Of course this will tend to take different forms and causes and so on depending who it is, but this tends to be a more catholic perspective that will, for example, accept that some domestic violence might be due to alcholism or mental health issues and so on, which the feminist theory strictly speaking does not. It also allows violence theorists to accept that women commit violence, something feminist theorists cannot for theoretical reasons, but of course practically for fear of losing control of their message.

    The facts of the matter are that the violence theorists are overwhelmingly supported by all available evidence, the feminist theorists have virtually no evidence for their view at all. The approximate balance of this is as between round and flat earth science respectively, its not even a legitimate debate really. This had led in recent years to feminist theorists quitting the empirical field of play and taking their ball home with them (for example, Dines, after years of trying to find evidence for her theories is now of the view that “science shit” tells you nothing, presumably we should all forget the years of her desperately trying to show otherwise!).

    However, feminist theorists are noisy and aggressive because they tend to also be campaigners and in many cases, professional paid campaigners. This sort of thing was of course important in raising the profile of the problem, no question. Violence theorists are mostly scientists and their cause isn’t one anyone is going to march under because it serves nobodies political or financial interests to do so. There just isn’t a constituency who can line up behind it, aside from people who don’t like domestic violence and aren’t convinced by the feminist theorists. They can write things like the PASK and despite being a rigorous feat of scholarship backed to the hilt by facts and literally thousands of studies, it will completely ignored for example, whereas feminist theorists can get a straw poll of Twitter users published in the papers on an almost daily basis.

    The most remarkable social fact about the ‘violence debate’ is that virtually nobody knows this debate was even occuring or that there was more than one side, its why we have articles like the one discussed.

    Of course, when I use the term “feminist theorists”, I’m using that a technical term, disagreeing with them is not anti-feminist and indeed nearly all violence theorists would enthusiastically describe themselves as feminists if asked (it is their feminism that got them into this in the first place). They just disagree about something they’ve observed and measured and believe there are more effective means of protecting women from violence than the proven ineffectual ideas proposed by the feminist perspective.

    This article was written from the feminist theorist perspective. Journalists need to be aware that there are other perspectives available, thats all. Its difficult because the consciousness raisers rightly enough got their first but you can be passionately against domestic violence without buying their dogma. Until this happens, these things are going to keep happening ultimately as a result of people thinking they are doing the right thing because they don’t know better.

    I’d like Ally to outline the violence debate for Guardian readers but obviously its not for me to tell someone else what to write.

  16. H.E. Pennypacker says

    @Marduk

    I see what you’re driving at with your assertion about two different theories of domestic violence but I’m not sure that a classic feminist model necessarily posits DV as a completely unique form of violence. My understanding is that many would see it as similar to any violence which is described as structural. State violence or racist violence (especially under slavery) would work on similar lines. If I’m a slave owner in pre-abolition USA I probably don’t need to beat my slaves because enough slave owners are that the whole relationship of power is reinforced through their actions. I don’t need to be violent because the assumption is that my power is backed up by the potential of violence. I agree that in the majority of cases this is not the right way to understand DV but I’m not sure that many feminists would argue that it is a completely unique category of violence.

  17. says

    @Raging Bee

    I don’t believe I see how you’re getting the idea that Ally or anyone generally in agreement with him on the issue here (aside from the trollish guy who posted after you, maybe, but I couldn’t read much more than a couple sentences into that crap) is advocating taking anything from women and giving it to men. Of course, there is the dilemma that most people, if asked to give money to help DV against men, will inevitably say something to the tune of “What? Men can take care of themselves!” That attitude is not helped by remaining silent on the fact that men do get abused in relationships, especially when it would be too easy to simply point that out in an article like that. Certainly, dealing with male on female domestic violence will have some indirect benefits for men, but wouldn’t it be most effective to go after all domestic violence at the same time?

  18. Anton Mates says

    @ Raging Bee,

    All in all, the Guardian article was far from perfect; but it’s a stretch to say it “erased” abuse of boys entirely.

    I’m not sure how else you could describe it. Nothing in the article even suggested that teenaged male abuse victims or teenaged female abusers exist–and since the article repeatedly mentioned that the survey covered both boys and girls, the reader could easily conclude that those two groups don’t exist in any significant numbers. Which, according to the study itself, is not the case. So, yeah, erasing.

    How do you manage to equate “challenging stereotypes” with “erasing the problem?”

    The answer is fairly obvious if you don’t abbreviate the first quote. If you’re presenting a study on teens of both sexes and conclude that we need to “challenge stereotypical behaviour and attitudes in boys,” this clearly implies that such behavior and attitudes in girls don’t pose a serious problem–at least not with respect to relationship violence. But that’s not the case.

    The study actually found that “negative gender attitudes” and regular porn-viewing are slightly stronger predictors of instigating sexual partner violence in girls than they are in boys. This is particularly remarkable given that the only “negative gender attitudes” they tested for were aimed toward women and girls; in other words, statements like “it’s okay for a man to hit a woman sometimes” or “sometimes a woman owes her partner sex.” (It would be very interesting to see if there was a similar effect from negative attitudes toward men and boys.)

    So: we need to challenge stereotypical behavior and attitudes in adolescents, period. And if you’re focusing only on boys, you’re missing part of the problem. If your school didn’t do that, awesome; neither did mine. But this article is doing that, and if Ally’s correct, so are many others.

  19. Marduk says

    @Pennypacker

    This is a weird one because its a kind of reverse straw-man, reasonable people immediately plot ways round it and the claim sounds risible. Yet the Dobash & Dobash piece (which more or less invented the area of study and the term “domestic violence”) not only argues that DV cannot be understood as a form of violence, it can’t even be understood as a form of family violence, its a totally unique category.This is what the theorists and those who closely adhere to what they say (a minority) do actually believe and act on in very real, concrete ways. Partly this is an artefact of the process of selecting a research question and answering it (these things tend to be more defined than anyone really believes they are but shrugging isn’t an appropriate way of ending a report), partly it might be an artefact of frame control (i.e., they want to marshall the discourse in case things start to slip and perceived gains are lost, there are even explicit arguments that the truth should be ignored if it harms the progress of activism).

    Bindel and her partner defend women who have killed their partners, the circumstances never seem to matter much because it can only be self defence. They will, at a push, argue for internalised patriarchy but the point is, it doesn’t and cannot happen outside that rubric. The opposition of various feminist groups to looking at violence amongst the mentally ill as a problem of mental illness would be another example. This is a real thing.

    Nice lit review here (esp. see page 27): http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/3146/1/Bates_Elizabeth_Final_e-Thesis_%28Master_Copy%29.pdf

  20. StillGjenganger says

    @Marduk, Pennypacker
    Very interesting discussion (thanks).
    You are way beyond me, but FWIW it reminds me of an attitude I ran across in Women’s Studies academics, on themes much less politically sensitive, such as gender bias in science. Basically the feminists involved already knew that whatever the question, the answer was patriarchical oppression. That being so they did not seem to care much about the specifics of the problem they happened to be studying. The answer was known, so it was just a matter of getting it confirmed. I found it a very unscientific attitude – surely the first commandment of science is to respect your data – but it would sort of fit if your real focus is revolutionary theory rather than boringly understanding the world.

  21. Marduk says

    StillGjenganger

    In a way I don’t think that there is actually anything wrong with that in and of itself, someone has a perspective and they try to examine things using that perspective. Its pretty much how you’re supposed to social science at this point in time, as the least-worst option (its generally better than pretending to have no biases when you do and its the preferred way of handling that, to go in with a massive admitted bias and see what works and what doesn’t work). The problem is that in that kind of area the line between what flies in the academy for those specific purposes, a kind stunt intellectualism where you are secretly expecting its going to break under you at any moment but you want to see how far you can get, and activism is pretty thin and Weird Shit follows. As I argue, and nobody is at all interested, the contagion of PoMo into the real world is what is going on with SJWs but thats just an aside.

    I like, encourage and fund activists against domestic violence, I’m just not thrilled about a very specific and slightly odd theory that isn’t widely supported being thought of as being synonymous with the issue and even less thrilled with the level of aggression and bad faith argument that meets anyone who does anything but blindly agree with it. Its like if the dominant view of global warming was that it was caused by pixies and the way to combat it is to carry out tea-related ceremonies to cheer them up. You can point to the scientific evidence, but then the pixiists scream at you about wanting to drown polar bears and find it impossible to believe that your motivation is not a hatred of pixies but rather a shared concern that the world is going to go to shit and thats a problem that needs to be fixed.

  22. JT says

    I like, encourage and fund activists against domestic violence, I’m just not thrilled about a very specific and slightly odd theory that isn’t widely supported being thought of as being synonymous with the issue and even less thrilled with the level of aggression and bad faith argument that meets anyone who does anything but blindly agree with it. Marduk

    Hear hear. I find a picture of a little boy sometimes brings them back down to the real world but alas that doesnt work for the real pixie lovers. Lucy comes to mind. 🙂

  23. StillGjenganger says

    someone has a perspective and they try to examine things using that perspective.

    I guess that is fair enough. But (being a natural rather than a social scientist) I think you still have to at least compare your results against some of the boring, obvious alternatives (‘null hypotheses’ if you like). Such as domestic violence being similar to other kinds of violence. Or some scientific theory being the way it is because this best fits the actual data, not because the scientists are biased males.

    As I argue, and nobody is at all interested, the contagion of PoMo into the real world is what is going on with SJWs but thats just an aside.

    I am interested. Can you give a link (I can hardly ask for a personalized explanation)?

  24. Marduk says

    My extensive confused ranting on the subject can be found in the open thread.

    Basically I’m saying that what Chait was talking is about is the same thing that others have been talking about by different names, even Bindel is having problems with the same people which I think really proves the point (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/18/feminism-rosetta-scientist-shirt-dapper-laughs-julien-blanc-inequality)

    My argument is that it isn’t actually feminism and it isn’t actually infighting, its a distinctive new phenomenon that a lot of people don’t understand because its largely younger people, its a bit slippery, some of the theories they say they use have nothing in common with the textbook definition and mainly, its on Tumblrs and things. But in aggregate, its massive and IMHO PoMo is the magic ingredient.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *