Female Founder Starts a Meme - By Just Calling Herself a Founder (nytimes.com) 117
It all began when a CEO and founder "was thinking about identity and the peppy phrases that female professionals use to describe themselves online: 'girl bosses' and the like," reports the New York Times:
"I worry about the negative impact of that," Ashley Sumner, 32, said. "I worry that it allows investors to see founders who are women as a separate class from the rest of the founders. I worry it allows investors to write women founders smaller checks. I do believe that women need to help inspire other women but also that identity can be used as labels to separate us."
Ms. Sumner is the chief executive officer of Quilt, an audio platform for conversations about self-care topics like wellness in the workplace, PTSD and astrology. (In prepandemic days, the company organized work gatherings and group discussions in people's homes.) She has felt marginalized in the woman section of founders' circles. "I am always asked to speak on the female founders panel," Ms. Sumner said. "I want to be asked to speak on the panel...."
On LinkedIn, she had never done more than repost someone else's articles or musings. But given that platform's focus on professional life, she thought it was a reasonable place to first share her handiwork. Ms. Sumner's post has drawn nearly 20,000 comments, from men and women in the United States, Australia, Africa, Latin America, India and beyond; from executives, construction workers, health care employees, professors and military professionals...
More than 150 female founders posted similar photos of themselves, crossing out the word "female," and then shared what was now credibly a meme on the internet.
Although not everyone in the Times' article agrees with that position, Sumner is arguing that "putting my gender in front of what I am belittles what I've accomplished."
Ms. Sumner is the chief executive officer of Quilt, an audio platform for conversations about self-care topics like wellness in the workplace, PTSD and astrology. (In prepandemic days, the company organized work gatherings and group discussions in people's homes.) She has felt marginalized in the woman section of founders' circles. "I am always asked to speak on the female founders panel," Ms. Sumner said. "I want to be asked to speak on the panel...."
On LinkedIn, she had never done more than repost someone else's articles or musings. But given that platform's focus on professional life, she thought it was a reasonable place to first share her handiwork. Ms. Sumner's post has drawn nearly 20,000 comments, from men and women in the United States, Australia, Africa, Latin America, India and beyond; from executives, construction workers, health care employees, professors and military professionals...
More than 150 female founders posted similar photos of themselves, crossing out the word "female," and then shared what was now credibly a meme on the internet.
Although not everyone in the Times' article agrees with that position, Sumner is arguing that "putting my gender in front of what I am belittles what I've accomplished."
Good grief (Score:4, Insightful)
If this is the kind of shit you worry about, you're not going to be a 'founder' for very long.
Re:Good grief (Score:4, Insightful)
Being a member of the default set is not a luxury everyone enjoys.
There is no default set (Score:4, Informative)
I think the point that many people are having a hard time accepting is there is no default set There never has been.
What could such a default set be? White men? We're less than about 36% of the U.S. population (=73% white * 49% men) - why would such a small group be the default? If instead you took the "average person" in the US they'd have light brown skin and be *very* slightly female. Not exactly a group particularly representative of anyone.
There has long been a strongly *dominant set* - but that's a very different concept.
Re:There is no default set (Score:4, Insightful)
The default set is what you are presumed to be before people see you. When you are not that thing, that triggers a closer examination of you that someone who *is* that thing doesn't get.
For example, you get a job interview for a programming job, and when you come in you're *older* than they expect. That makes them wonder whether you can do the job in a way that they wouldn't if you were younger.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case the "default set" is entirely context- and observer-dependent, so there's not much useful conversation that can be had about it. *Especially* not in any general sense.
Re: (Score:2)
You're making an assumption that we cannot discuss the *statistical* impact because individual observers vary.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure there's a default set, at least subjectively - and who of us doesn't live and interact with the world according to our subjective assumptions? I have always gotten the sense that the vast majority of Slashdot commenters were male, like myself. Is this actually the case? I have no idea. But the fact that my mind immediately and automatically associates "tech forum discussions" with "males", shows that the default set is ensconced in place. Of course, real data often overthrow our biased assumptions; but
Re: (Score:2)
There is certainly my default set, and your default set. But those are highly subjective and say far more about our personal preconceptions than they do about objective reality.
But hey! specified the default set, which I would argue implies an observer-independent objective reference point. And that simply does does not exist.
Which "default set" is the cause? (Score:2)
Being a member of the default set is not a luxury everyone enjoys.
That is absolutely true and unreasonable discrimination certainly can have a significant negative impact on people. However, her company appears to believe that astrology is a serious topic so perhaps the "default set" here is people who believe in science? Not believing in science is a luxury that nobody should enjoy.
Re: (Score:1)
You can still, however, founder around.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? She just got free advertising for her company. If she lets herself be manipulated by that kind of thing, then you are right. But if she knows how to use it, then she will do fine.
Re: (Score:2)
At least the message is right. "Female founder" with "female" crossed out. Way better than hashtag-girlboss.
Re: (Score:3)
If this is the kind of shit you worry about, you're not going to be a 'founder' for very long.
This is the kind of shit these people have to worry about before even becoming a founder. The fact that you missed that just reinforces how blind your male privilege has made you.
Re: (Score:3)
Starting a business isn't hard. Anybody can do it.
This woman has made an excellent point: The successful people define their role in the business in relation to the business, not by their gender.
There's no fucking privilege involved, let alone some sexist bullshit like 'male privilege'. There aren't entire angel investment firms that proudly boast they only invest in men, there aren't 'men owned business' organisations, there isn't a 'men owned' logo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this is the kind of shit you worry about, you're not going to be a 'founder' for very long.
Warning, warning. Dumb early warning system detects a Helot pretending to be Spartan in the vicinity.
Re: (Score:2)
No one takes her seriously because of the vagina. The belief in astrology has nothing to do with it. Damn misogynists.
Ass-trology? (Score:2, Insightful)
No wonder she isn't being taken seriously
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows what they discuss there? Maybe they're all about how using astrology to explain your personality traits actually only makes you more of an irresponsible asshole.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Granted she is a medium but I don't think astrology is seen as a bad thing on this site.
Are you new here? Have you suffered a recent blow to the head? Astrology is routinely pilloried on this site because it's junk. Not junk science, just plain junk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Social baggage. (Score:3)
Although not everyone in the Times' article agrees with that position, Sumner is arguing that "putting my gender in front of what I am belittles what I've accomplished."
It's the baggage others put around it that's the problem, much like ethnicity, race, and nationality.
Re:Social baggage. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sumner nailed it.
I don't care if you're an albino pansexual panda eunuch. Introducing people or discussing them ought to start with the relevant bit: what did they do?
Leave off the labels. The very idea that we introduce people by their melatonin levels, fiddly bits, sexual proclivities, and so on, is really mind-bogglingly weird, if you consider it closely. I've never actually understood why we do it.
If want to talk to me about what someone has done, then tell me what they've done and let me impressed. On the Internet, I have no idea what any of you look like, and I don't care at all. To me, you have the value of your actions alone, which gives you maximal freedom and choice with respect to me. I'm not going to suddenly care if you're an albino pansexual panda eunuch. If you can still maintain XYZ project, what difference could it ever possibly make to me?
Re: Social baggage. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
[...] Introducing people or discussing them ought to start with the relevant bit: what did they do? Leave off the labels
Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of people who refuse to listen to your argument unless its prefixed by the appropriate "identity politics" labels that give you the "authority" from which to present it.
"albino pansexual panda eunuch"
These same people consider that "I don't care if you're XYZ" language to be an immediate trigger phrase that indicates you to be part of the "the other side" in the culture war they're constantly fighting.
Re: (Score:3)
Just so. I have absolutely no respect for anyone who mentions any identity politics card in regard to business.
As soon as you mention needing to help people of color, underserved communities, the empowering women, blah blah. I'm out. I will go out of my way to avoid any kind of business with you or give you worse terms. To me it has the feel of a used car salesman or a televangelist. Now I don't actually care about your identity or your religion but something about you trying to make me think God would want
LMFAO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let me fix that for you: The left believes that no special consideration should be given to people based on their pronouns.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Story can best be said as, labels define us. That's part of labels purpose to classify and simplify. Sometimes for the purpose of managing information overload.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe these kind of labels define you. For myself the junk I'm packing (or imagine I'm packing) isn't a significant part of my identity. Meditate a bit, have a freaking ethos, have a life philosophy, have a core personality that is unique and persistent across changes to those things. Don't be a label shared by millions of other people... that is more like a church or a cult.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:LMFAO (Score:5, Insightful)
The conservative position is to ignore anything that happens in the real world, as though merely holding some ideological position is exactly the same as having achieved it. Yes, it would be nice to pretend everyone is treated equally, but it's not true. Merely believing that they should be treated equally is not the same as them being treated equally. Pointing out that inequality exists is not the same as perpetuating it (none of that "noticing racism is racism" bullshit from racist conservatives).
Many women have been tried the same tactic before and in some cases works, and some cases doesn't. It certainly did NOT work to change the attitude towards the majority of women. It has taken centuries to reach this point, and will take at least a few decades more, if not at least another century, given your attitude.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the conservative position isn't to ignore what happens in the real world. It's to focus on the real world very intensely, and fix what they see as objectively broken. This is very good for maintaining systems and refining them (Japanese traditions, for example, are very conservative; they focus intensely on a discipline until they master it and produce the sublime).
It's the job of the liberal thinking to ignore the real world, as that's how disruption happens. Because something isn't in the rea
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Actually, the conservative position isn't to ignore what happens in the real world. It's to focus on the real world very intensely, and fix what they see as objectively broken.
And you precisely proven my point, given it is conservative governments that have ALL severely fucked up their response to COVID-19. "Liberal" governments (not the ones that have the word "Liberal" in their name, which are anything but) have been the only ones listening to scientists and prioritize the saving of lives. And that's just upfront, in-your-face, disasters.
You like to BELIEVE that's what you stand for, but that doesn't ACHIEVE what you stand for. No problems have been fixed by conservatism, be
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no they haven't. There's a mixed bag, as originally, the science was NOT there to make any reliable decisions. Both liberal AND conservative governments did what they thought best and there is a mixed bag of failure and success.
Once the science was becoming clear, most sides moved into the best of the models they had available. There is of course disagreements between models as they all had to make assumptions, and decisions were made on those, and they progressively became better decisions.
The
Re: (Score:3)
And if there's one thing conservatives are known for, it's their ability to change! Wait...
Re: (Score:3)
They do, just slowly. It's often in the way Science progresses in established fields (I believe the quote is that Scientific fields advances one dead scientist at a time).
Extreme conservatives don't, I'll grant you. In the same way that extreme liberals don't (they just want continual change, but that's not change for them).
The vast majority are open to change as long as its provable and sensible (this would be the 'silent majority', which is both without a large political voice, and also a rather large ma
Re: (Score:2)
"The conservative position is to ignore anything that happens in the real world, as though merely holding some ideological position is exactly the same as having achieved it."
Over the course of time it is. There was no reason to force an equitable outcome. Over the course of time people who have it for the wrong reasons will lose it and people with merit will accumulate it. It doesn't happen in a decade it happens across generations. Come back after a time period which is significant in human history like 3
Re: (Score:2)
That is the problem in a nutshell, moving goal posts. I'd still disagree with their racist ideology but I'd be less concerned if they had some kind of clearly defined goal that could be objectively measured as complete. They don't.
The last relief bill alone was more reparations than relief payout with almost everything it in earmarked for 'not white'... if you are a black farmer with a debt on 1000 acres which hasn't be harmed by the pandemic, PAID. But if you are a white farmer who hasn't been able to scr
Re: (Score:2)
Times change. Maybe once it was helpful, maybe now it isn't.
An over-simplification for sure but you get the point.
Re: (Score:2)
*bows* Namaste
Re: (Score:2)
Have progressives finally arrived at the conservative position on gender equality in the workplace? That no special consideration should be given to people based on their genitals? Who would have thunk it.
Nope; the story is about some progressives recognizing that letting conservatives know they're women / black / gay / atheist / poor / foreign is a good way to NOT be treated equally in the workplace.
They already knew that no special consideration should be given, but that negative consideration is very much real, and that progressive efforts haven't balanced the scale against conservative discrimination. See how easy it is to turn things shitty and political?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's a story of a woman who figured out that if you point out a property as if it's significant, people will treat it as significant.
Re: (Score:2)
Have progressives finally arrived at the conservative position on gender equality in the workplace? That no special consideration should be given to people based on their genitals? Who would have thunk it.
Hmm... Don't know about "special consideration", but it does seem like Conservatives give people more consideration in general if they're men -- usually white men... often white, rich men.
Simple Rule to Live By (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't swap race/gender/etc for equivalent terms. Don't use it.
If you can't say Boy Boss, don't say Girl Boss
If you can't say He Is a Strong Man, don't say She's a Strong Woman
If you can't say He's a Pretty Little Thing, don't say "She's a Pretty Little Thing"
Obviously it's more nuanced than I'm saying above, but it's a good rule to at least be sensitive to, if not avoid.
More professionally, you won't hear a discussion of "What does he do? Oh, he's a male founder." But you do hear *way* too often the female equivalent. Drop the gendered or marginalizing adjective unless it is *really* needed.
Our most recent window in politics is showing the extreme polarizing power of unnecessary adjectives. Trump et al started relying on pairing strong adjectives (radical agenda/sleepy Joe/crooked Hillary/china|wuhan Virus). With repetition they begin to stick and become hard to work through.
Same for in the workplace, we use it quite a lot, just listen.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, but Trump mastered it to pejoratively skewer opposition. His adjectives used for support and endorsement are "blah" and unimaginative in comparison.
I'm not judging the past, but I'm assessing the now and the future. I much more prefer SARS-Cov2/COVID-19 than China Virus. The ability to have sensible conversations around transmissibility, immune protection and so on are much better than with "China Virus". Taxonomy is important.
Re: (Score:2)
Point of origin is of significance as well and historically appropriate. People just like to pretend there are racists all over the place discriminating against Asians. That of course is absurd.
There are no shortage of people who cast suspicion on the CCP for the conveniently timed virus which originated in their territory yet had little impact on them. It isn't as if biological warfare would be out of character for the CCP. That is why many have taken to the term CCP Virus.
Re: (Score:2)
And while a different, but related, topic... I wish straight women would stop saying "girlfriend" as a common term for "friend who happens to be female." You never, ever, hear straight men use the term "boyfriend" in the same context.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a study on women's sports posted here a couple days ago that pointed out that male athletes are almost never described as such, while female soccer players are often identified by gender. This is because we think of the category "professional basket ball player" as being an adult male. It is a bit like those old movies where a female doctor would be described as a "lady doctor" because people thought of "doctors" as being male (not because she was a gynecologist).
Challenging our assumptions invo
Re: (Score:2)
In sport 'female' is a designation that indicates the athlete qualifies for the 'earn far more than other people with the same athletic ability' group within a sport.
Without that tag you have to compete with people at the top end of the sport. With it you can join a special group that often gets the same pay and benefits as those top people, but would lose heavily were they to compete with them.
"Female founder" should convey no such benefits, and indeed anybody assuming "founder" has a gendered connotation
Re: (Score:2)
But you do hear *way* too often the female equivalent.
If you ever come across a woman with 3 tits I have no doubt you'll tell people about it, and talk about it over beers. No doubt the people you're drinking with will have heard of her too. Why? Because it's not normal. You hear the female equivalent "female founder" because it's rare and unique. When you see a white fox with red eyes you don't call it a fox, you say "wow it's an albino fox, how rare!"
When we get to the point where the label stops being interesting then we will also be at the point where addi
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with what you are saying to an extent. But it does come down to what should be normalized and what will remain an outlier.
Should a female founder be considered a permanent outlier? Probably not. There is nothing intrinsic about an female that makes the pre-disposed to *not* being a founder. The addition of outlier status is a continued identification of it being unique, different. What percentage of female founders does it suddenly not become rare - 1%, 5%, 15%, 30%? I dunno, but if a woman
Re: (Score:2)
You hear the female equivalent "female founder" because it's rare and unique.
Is it fuck.
Which miserable misogynist shithole do you inhabit that doesn't have women starting businesses all the time?
Just because you haven't heard of Anita Roddick, Kelly Hoppen or Denise Coates doesn't mean that they're rare, it means that they got on and built successful businesses without needing your patronising support.
Across my group of friends more women than men have started businesses, and if you exclude the 'personal services provider' limited companies used by IT contractors for tax reasons, t
Re: (Score:2)
But, at the same time, the longer women call themselves "female X", the longer people will consider the "female" part to be significant.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I don't know about sexist, but otherwise your point about labels not as objects of derision, but character (touched upon in the original story) is important. How does one build up a group without tearing it down?
Re: (Score:2)
When people say "Strong" for women, it's isn't the actual attribute. Strong Male actors would typically bring Vin Diesel, Arnold, Dwayne to mind.
For females, strong usually has a connotation of "spirited", "determined", "stoic", etc. Which is equally appropriate.
In response to Cryptimus' post is actually a statement around classifying movies that use women as props, or women as protagonists. I recently binged with the family on the Fantastic 4 . They rebooted it 2015 for a reason. The 2005 version http [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
If the group is based on having a common sex then it is sexist. This isn't that hard guys. You don't tear down OR lift up people based on their sex. Tear them down or lift them up for worthy reasons... the identity cards all have one thing in common. They are historically established BAD reasons to group people and lift them up or push them down.
Re: (Score:2)
I know plenty of movies with strong men in them. Often even as the movies defining feature. It is not how we describe people in real life, but it is acceptable for fictional characters.
Re: (Score:2)
Her point is that the movie should just have a "strong character" (that happens to be female). For an example, think of Ripley in Alien. Movies with a "strong female character" tend to go down the path of making a big deal that the characters are female, which just ends up feeling forced and cheapening the whole thing. For example the Ghostbusters reboot from a few years back.
Tired of identity politics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason they call themselves female founders is because it's a significant accomplishment to get to that position with the handicap of boobs and a vagina. When people stop feeling the need to announce their accomplishment in terms of their gender, then we'll have reached gender equality.
I know this may be difficult for privileged males to understand.
Re: (Score:1)
You do realize that founders”, be them male or female, are privileged people, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that founders”, be them male or female, are privileged people, right?
Errr no. Just because the ones you have heard of come from Harvard Business School doesn't mean they are all privileged, it just means that you have no idea of what a founder is.
Re: (Score:1)
/me replies in Eastern European white male privilege
Re: (Score:2)
Within a company, the founders are the most privileged. You don't seem to understand language very well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
when I would never be trusted with such a thing.
Come up with an idea which would sell and you'll be trusted with such a thing too. Most founders are not upper class wealthy people.
Re: (Score:1)
Just call her... (Score:2, Funny)
Just call her a "foundress". Or "foundrix".
Re: (Score:2)
Last sounds like a BDSM term, and don't call them foundlings. Sounds too close to something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Generalized Statement (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
"Women are now taught that they need to emulate the behavior of men in order to have any worth in society. I would say that this attitude is one of the biggest problems we face today with regards to the relationship between the sexes. Considering that men and women are not equal, this attitude ultimately leads to women feeling resentment because they can't keep up with men."
This is obviously a troll but there is a kernel of truth here. According to fmri studies women are social creatures and being pushed to
Re: (Score:2)
Who is teaching women they need to emulate men?
Women wanting to be successful business leaders are being taught to emulate successful business leaders. There's a blend of leadership, commercial savvy, risk taking, chutzpah and ruthlessness that can be emulated. That's not a man thing, many men can't exhibit that blend of traits either.
Question (Score:2)
Does calling her a 'female founder' trivialize what Elizabeth Holmes accomplished with Theranos?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if you just weren't paying attention but her gender ABSOLUTELY was part of her meteoric rise to prominence, credibility, and certainly funding.
One might further suggest that the reticence against anyone daring to criticize "strong independent" women publicly today might have prolonged her arc before crashing directly relevant to the length of time her shenanigans hurt people.
Evil Labels That Divide (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an ex colleague of mine once said on the topic of race/skin colour: "quarter of an inch down and we're all the same -- we're all red and squishy inside"
An interesting view - slightly undermined by his being the local first-aider (who you'd hope knew a bit more detail than 'red & squishy')
Re: (Score:2)
"quarter of an inch down and we're all the same -- we're all red and squishy inside"
Okay, I can't be the only one surprised it wasn't "-- assholes."
Founding a company that focuses on garbage. (Score:1)
Much feminism! Such cliche! (Score:2, Insightful)
9 out of 10 women who think the Handmaid's Tale is the Republican Party's playbook agree this was a brave and dank meme.
Everyone else recognizes that this just another data point supporting the idea that the left is terrible at memes.
wisdom from the 80's (Score:3)
"So, peoples is peoples. Okay?”
— Pete, Muppets Take Manhattan (1984)
"A woman doesn't know how powerful her voice is until she has been silenced"
— Ursula, The Little Mermaid (1989)
"Stephanie Reassemble."
— Johnny 5, Short Circuit (1986)
"I am Serious and Don’t Call Me Shirley."
— Dr. Rumack, Airplane! (1980)
Society Will Be Fair When (Score:2)
We don't care what gender a founder is and don't hold special panels by gender.
This is a positive trend that has been a long time coming.
Maybe it's just me but (Score:2)
If someone has a title, I'm not going to question their socioeconomic background. I am, however, going to question their skills in the relevant field. I run into enough posers in my life who didn't earn their station in life that just because one has a title doesn't mean they know diddly squat.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two kinds of companies (or leadership styles). One leadership style is to build up a gang of like-minded people who are loyal to you, fight off rivals, and take over the corporation. This turns out to be an effective strategy. You gain power.
The second type of company (or leadership style) is where you recognize people for the skill they have, and put them in a position where they can use those skills to the max. This is also an effective strategy. You build great stuff. This is the Elon Musk/Stev
Good on her (Score:2)
Let's hope this catches on everywhere, and is not a temporary fad.
What I always say: (Score:1)
As long as you keep calling Americans "African Americans", just because they are black, there will he racism.
Compare British black people to American ones, to see how integrated they could be.
Now transport that analogy over: Not just to women, but to everything.
E.g. the silliest thing I ever saw, were two Olympic Games equivalents, one for homosexual people, and one for Jewish people.
Do they not even realize that that compares them to the paralympics, by implying that they are somehow genetically different/
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the escalation of inclusivity. It's gotten to where if you don't list every single possible individual it's seen as "excluding them" when that is not what's happening.
"We hire women."
"Oh? Do you hire black people?"
"We hire black people and women."
"What about LGBT people?"
"We hire black people and women and LGBT people"
"Excuse me but that's not very inclusive you need to include LGBTIGWDQSKDASFKG+"
"Okay we hire black people and women an-"
"What about asians?"
"We hire asians and blacks an-"
"Excu
"You know Amy..." (Score:2)
"Anytime someone calls attention to the breaking of gender roles, it ultimately undermines the concept of gender equality by implying that this is an exception and not the status quo." - Knuckles the Echidna, Sonic Boom
She did what she wanted to do (Score:1)
... she brought attention to herself and her company. Which is great. People who are interested in astrology will talk about her fierce attitude, the rest will either applaud her or point out that she's hypocritical. She's the talk of the town, go her. It's always good to see privileged people succeed in life. Sexism sometimes works, and I love how tone-deaf people ignore the fact that they defend a privileged woman taking advantage of her gender, while complaining that segregated conferences, stuff like wo
Too funny (Score:2)
Ms. Sumner is the chief executive officer of Quilt, an audio platform for conversations about self-care topics like wellness in the workplace, PTSD and astrology
Yes, it's just outrageous that this could get stereotyped as a woman thing ...
Hopefully people will listen now (Score:1)
However, the fact that I'm a man apparently reduces the value of my opinion on this topic sig
Comment (Score:2)
There, I fixed it for you (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I sometimes wonder how many personality disorders you have. I'm betting at least 3.