Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

fairfarmhand

Excellent article on the development of family dynamics and its impacts on society

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Reefgazer said:

To the bolded:  I agree with you completely here.  This isn't far to the left, really; it describes conservatives quite well.  COnservatives beleive in taking care of their family and friends.

The reason I defined myself as being on the left was that the article suggested that progressives were unwilling to judge and lay down guidelines for decent family behaviour. I was trying to work out where my own red lines lie.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laura Corin said:

@Homeschool Mom in AZ, has the retirement age for SS risen at all?

Yes, it has.  It has risen gradually to 67, with higher payouts if people postpone starting it until age 70, and just last year the minimum age for required minimum distributions was raised from 70 1/2 to 72, in recognition of how many folks are working into their supposed ‘retirement’ years.  Age discrimination is very much alive and well here, too, and although it is illegal, it is extremely hard to prove.  So people are often forced into a retirement that they did not choose, too early to have saved enough not to work.  This is a tricky problem all around.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Yes, it has.  It has risen gradually to 67, with higher payouts if people postpone starting it until age 70, and just last year the minimum age for required minimum distributions was raised from 70 1/2 to 72, in recognition of how many folks are working into their supposed ‘retirement’ years.  Age discrimination is very much alive and well here, too, and although it is illegal, it is extremely hard to prove.  So people are often forced into a retirement that they did not choose, too early to have saved enough not to work.  This is a tricky problem all around.

Here too. My husband and one of my brothers were each made redundant in their fifties, over ten years before their pensions would kick in. It's likely that younger, cheaper people were slid into similar roles to replace them.  Neither managed to find full time employment thereafter.

My brother managed to be rehired part time by his old firm. Husband is very lightly self employed. I went to work full time in an administrative role - I'm younger and work for a public university that mostly follows the rules.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

Here too. My husband and one of my brothers were each made redundant in their fifties, over ten years before their pensions would kick in. It's likely that younger, cheaper people were slid into similar roles to replace them.  Neither managed to find full time employment thereafter.

My brother managed to be rehired part time by his old firm. Husband is very lightly self employed. I went to work full time in an administrative role - I'm younger and work for a public university that mostly follows the rules.

Here it's younger, cheaper (in terms of base salary) and probably most importantly -- less expensive in terms of health insurance. Being involuntarily "retired" well before 65 is all too common. One of our neighbors is currently being pushed out the door of the job he's had for 15+ years. I think he's 60 or 61, and his youngest son is a freshman in college. It's very doubtful he'll be able to find another full time job at his age, let alone one with benefits. He's anticipating having to cobble together something--maybe a part time job and doing some painting or other handyman type work on his own. Yep, us Boomers sure got it made, rolling in our prosperity . . . 

  • Like 7
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

us Boomers sure got it made

 

In my husband's family, in the midwest, it has become a huge problem, too, that men in trades bodies are just giving out just a few years before their retirement ages. Because of the nature of the work. Which, of course, is something to take into account while we (me, especially) rail against college-as-default and useless degrees that come with so much debt. 

One problem doesn't ameliorate the other though, of course. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OKBud said:

 

In my husband's family, in the midwest, it has become a huge problem, too, that men in trades bodies are just giving out just a few years before their retirement ages. Because of the nature of the work. Which, of course, is something to take into account while we (me, especially) rail against college-as-default and useless degrees that come with so much debt. 

One problem doesn't ameliorate the other though, of course. 

 


I try hard to balance that debate too. I tell my kids a job that pays awesome without a degree is also often a job that is no benefits and no security and lots of hard on the body. Accountants don’t lose their entire livelihood if they get arthritis or fall and break a leg.  So if they take a job without a degree, I highly suggest they do their best to plan for a much sooner day of retirement. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chief Actuary of Social Security and his staff run projections which determine in large part changes in retirement rules. Politicians also take the info (which they rarely understand) and use it as a means to try to get what they want. The process is pretty complex.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

Here it's younger, cheaper (in terms of base salary) and probably most importantly -- less expensive in terms of health insurance. Being involuntarily "retired" well before 65 is all too common. One of our neighbors is currently being pushed out the door of the job he's had for 15+ years. I think he's 60 or 61, and his youngest son is a freshman in college. It's very doubtful he'll be able to find another full time job at his age, let alone one with benefits. He's anticipating having to cobble together something--maybe a part time job and doing some painting or other handyman type work on his own. Yep, us Boomers sure got it made, rolling in our prosperity . . . 

We're facing that personally now as well. Younger, cheaper, and, in DH's industry, increasing numbers of foreign workers are getting the jobs...and doing the hiring. Highly skilled but 55+ plus workers? Not so much.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

The reason I defined myself as being on the left was that the article suggested that progressives were unwilling to judge and lay down guidelines for decent family behaviour. I was trying to work out where my own red lines lie.

 

That bit of the article is mostly prejudice, with a pinch of truth.

It's not as if all non-traditional families (the ones progressives supposedly champion) are dancing about celebrating indecent family behaviour. I mean, non trad families are just as boring as trad families 🙂 It's all 'use your words!' with the littlies and 'what time do you need me to pick you up, Mum, for the doctor's appt' for the elders, whether you're a single mom, a gay couple or whatever. 

The pinch of truth is that progressive families are less likely to be authoritarian, and while many are simple authoritative instead, you are more likely to find permissive styles of parenting in that cohort than in more conservative families. And there can be a certain indulgence of the individual in permissive styles (I'd include myself as quite on the permissive side, so no shade to anyone who self-identifies that way).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

That bit of the article is mostly prejudice, with a pinch of truth.

It's not as if all non-traditional families (the ones progressives supposedly champion) are dancing about celebrating indecent family behaviour. I mean, non trad families are just as boring as trad families 🙂 It's all 'use your words!' with the littlies and 'what time do you need me to pick you up, Mum, for the doctor's appt' for the elders, whether you're a single mom, a gay couple or whatever. 

The pinch of truth is that progressive families are less likely to be authoritarian, and while many are simple authoritative instead, you are more likely to find permissive styles of parenting in that cohort than in more conservative families. 

Yes. And personality has a lot to do with it.  I don't think anyone would think my parenting style was loosey goosey. I love a good rule, and my children seemed to take comfort from structure.

Edited by Laura Corin
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2020 at 10:10 AM, StellaM said:

I think it's broader than family.

There's been a breakdown in traditional forms of community, and the space that leaves hasn't neccessarily been filled with new forms of community meeting the human needs that never went away.

Obviously, this is going to vary widely by region, by dominant or family cultural norms, and by luck of the draw.

But I know where I am, church going is way, way down, volunteer work is down, especially amongst the non-retired, civic organisation membership is down, trade union membership is down, membership of political parties down. And all families are affected, not just non-traditional families. 

And part of this I think is driven by changing economic needs.  Even in our community where people want to volunteer and go to church work hours get in the way

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

And part of this I think is driven by changing economic needs.  Even in our community where people want to volunteer and go to church work hours get in the way

And fit retired people of sixty are now fit working people of sixty, so they have less time for volunteering.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laura Corin said:

And fit retired people of sixty are now fit working people of sixty, so they have less time for volunteering.

Yes.

the whole demographic of people who built community - seniors, stay at home mums with school age kids - are encouraged to be productive economically instead.  While this has some benefits it also has some drawbacks.

this is a bit of a stereotype.  There are people who manage to do a heck of a lot of volunteering in spite of almost full time work but not everyone has that much get up and go or ability to handle being around other human beings that long.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Yes.

the whole demographic of people who built community - seniors, stay at home mums with school age kids - are encouraged to be productive economically instead.  While this has some benefits it also has some drawbacks.

this is a bit of a stereotype.  There are people who manage to do a heck of a lot of volunteering in spite of almost full time work but not everyone has that much get up and go or ability to handle being around other human beings that long.

Yes.  I'll admit to doing no volunteering at the moment.  I work full time and visit my mum, as well as spending time with other close family and friends.  This is all the human contact I can sustain long term.  My retirement age is 67.  I'm hoping to have lots to give after that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

The reason I defined myself as being on the left was that the article suggested that progressives were unwilling to judge and lay down guidelines for decent family behaviour. I was trying to work out where my own red lines lie.

In general, I think the belief that those on the left have no philosophy of family life because they don’t want to judge is a fallacy. I certainly have very strong beliefs about what is right and wrong when it comes to families, especially when children are involved. However, I draw the line at working to implement laws or policies that deny rights and privileges to others that I myself enjoy, based on family composition.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

Here too. My husband and one of my brothers were each made redundant in their fifties, over ten years before their pensions would kick in. It's likely that younger, cheaper people were slid into similar roles to replace them.  Neither managed to find full time employment thereafter.

My brother managed to be rehired part time by his old firm. Husband is very lightly self employed. I went to work full time in an administrative role - I'm younger and work for a public university that mostly follows the rules.

 

Here I'm seeing that professional men are shoved out after 25 years,regardless of age.  To stay employed one needs to, at the 24 year mark, switch employers. Waiting until one has no job seems to imply that one did not actively upgrade one's skills throughout one's career.   The women are getting kicked out at the birth of the child or they are used to make a gender balanced layoff. They go get the next college degree while the children are in school, if cancer or eldercare duties don't slay that possibility, then back to the workforce with a long commute. For those that married an older spouse, they have to go back to the workforce to get health care insurance for themselves once the spouse is on Medicare....and its helpful if the spouse doesn't need substantial home care for a chronic or terminal illness simultaneously. 

As far as volunteering...some of the places I volunteered at  no longer take volunteers, and instead only hire out those tasks.  Others have volunteers who aren't leaving until they die, and haven't taken on a new volunteer since I left 25 years ago. Elder care takes my volunteer hours, but is not counted as volunteer hours by those that do the counting.

Edited by HeighHo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HeighHo said:

 

Here I'm seeing that professional men are shoved out after 25 years,regardless of age.  To stay employed one needs to, at the 24 year mark, switch employers. Waiting until one has no job seems to imply that one did not actively upgrade one's skills throughout one's career.  

My brother would fit that pattern but not my husband.  Husband had moved job repeatedly, including changing continent several times, updating his skills and experience.  He had only been in that job for six years and the company had moved him across the world in the middle of that.  The company was not doing well though and I think wanted to save money. 

It turned out that there was a market for experienced people of 50 (the age at which he was taken on) but not 56.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laura Corin said:

My brother would fit that pattern but not my husband.  Husband had moved job repeatedly, including changing continent several times, updating his skills and experience.  He had only been in that job for six years and the company had moved him across the world in the middle of that.  The company was not doing well though and I think wanted to save money. 

It turned out that there was a market for experienced people of 50 (the age at which he was taken on) but not 56.

 

The few people I know in this situation are now consultants in the same industry, or they have become self employed using a particular skill set.  The company went down before they could find the next job, and the new owner of the company did not want their services in any capacity (most men were rehired for same job, or a lower skilled job).

..

Edited by HeighHo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally had time to read this article, and hopefully I will get time to read the comments also.

Wanted to say a few things.

1) A lot of assumptions about correlation / causation.  He blames all of society's ills on family stuff.  But there have been those problems in all types of family structures and societies.  For example, the historic opioid stuff in China - can't get too much more familistic than traditional China. 

2) Leaving the family doesn't cause these problems, but it can highlight them as now the person is the responsibility of society vs. his own family.

3) Prosperity in the overall economy makes it easy to leave and go it alone, earlier than some people are ready.

4) A lot of the problems he blames on family structure norms are perhaps more accurately attributed to executive function problems.  The same problems that make a person unsuccessful in family life will likely make them unsuccessful in making all sorts of life choices, related to job, spending, health, crime, sex, and raising their own kids.

5) Even though some people are probably not as well off as they would be in a "family," that does not mean government measures to effectively impose family on people are the solution. 

6) That said, I happen to live in what this guy would call a "forged family."  I often comment that a lot of problems could be solved if people would accept that sharing can be a really positive choice.  It is not easy though.  It won't work for people who can't compromise on a fairly constant basis.  People need to understand the difference between "you need to accept me for who I am" vs. "you need to accept my behavior."

I think it's silly to attack or blame the nuclear family, but it's wise to value different ways which have been wrongly attacked in the past.

fn...Also, side note - the "people over 65" stats don't seem to consider many changes within that range, e.g., increasing numbers at the older end and declines in healthy lifelong activity.  This is just one of many stats mentioned that don't seem to be fully thought out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My folks are pre-boomer and I am post-boomer.  My folks married & started a family young and worked pretty hard to make the best of it.  They kept the family together through its ups and downs.  Now they are retired and living modestly in their 100+yo home.  They live in a rural village, so their kids have had to look elsewhere for jobs, but all have declined to move beyond reasonable driving distance from the folks & each other.

Our inter- and intra-generational stuff is complicated.  I have helped my folks and siblings a lot, financially, before I became a parent.  I took custody of my kids at age 41, when my folks were retired and in declining health.  They had little help to give me for various reasons, none of which could be blamed on selfishness.  I was hoping there would be more extended family stuff than we have, but it is what it is.

I don't do much for my folks nowadays, but I feel guilty about it.  There are things I could do if I were less busy with job and kids.  On the other hand, kids are only kids once, and I am their only parent, while my folks have 5 other children.  I've offered to pay for help to come in for them, but they have declined over and over.  The offer remains open; hopefully they will take it someday.  And when my kids are more independent and I work fewer hours, hopefully it will not be too late for me to go over and help my folks.  Hopefully even my kids will be willing to do so.  We'll see.

PS I should probably add that none of my grandparents lived with extended family in old age.  Nor did any of them have their parents living with them.  So this is not some kind of new trend.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dh lost his job on his 62nd birthday and has never worked a full-time single job again. Couldn't get hired, and he has a master's degree. Oh, he works way more than full-time, just not a single job with benefits. Today was his "day off" so he didn't drive school bus, didn't drive the public bus, but "only" fed cattle, loaded hay, vaccinated, sold hay, fixed a truck, plowed, and then fed cattle, etc. all over again. It was dd's "day off" so she did all those things too, plus she's on call to plow for the county, though it looks like the snow has held off. He waited to take his SS until 66 (now it's 67) though it was hard to do as he has terminal cancer. He's picking up extra shifts this week as he'll miss several days for another hospital round next week. Yeah, we're Boomers. We're rolling in our "prosperity" too.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Margaret in CO said:

Dh lost his job on his 62nd birthday and has never worked a full-time single job again. Couldn't get hired, and he has a master's degree. Oh, he works way more than full-time, just not a single job with benefits. Today was his "day off" so he didn't drive school bus, didn't drive the public bus, but "only" fed cattle, loaded hay, vaccinated, sold hay, fixed a truck, plowed, and then fed cattle, etc. all over again. It was dd's "day off" so she did all those things too, plus she's on call to plow for the county, though it looks like the snow has held off. He waited to take his SS until 66 (now it's 67) though it was hard to do as he has terminal cancer. He's picking up extra shifts this week as he'll miss several days for another hospital round next week. Yeah, we're Boomers. We're rolling in our "prosperity" too.

I'm sorry for your hard times, Margaret.  As to the bolded:  Lots of people don't realize that older people suffer workplace discrimination, and on top of that, don't have the financial recovery time that younger people do before they are forced to recover due to illness or infirmity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing about this article that bothers me is the regular denigration of those who (usually stay-at-home mothers) choose to make the home and children their work choice.  The author repeatedly refers to being "stuck at home", "relegated to the kitchen", etc...  But never mentions being "caught in the trap of breadwinner" or "tied to a paycheck".  He's part of the problem when he devalues building a community of people to take care of kids and the elderly.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Reefgazer said:

One thing about this article that bothers me is the regular denigration of those who (usually stay-at-home mothers) choose to make the home and children their work choice.  The author repeatedly refers to being "stuck at home", "relegated to the kitchen", etc...  But never mentions being "caught in the trap of breadwinner" or "tied to a paycheck".  He's part of the problem when he devalues building a community of people to take care of kids and the elderly.

I'm very torn on this. I value the caring work that people do for children or the elderly or infirm. I'm also aware that the 'golden age' of families looking after their own often involved a daughter being given no choice as to career: she was to look after her parents and that was that.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Reefgazer said:

One thing about this article that bothers me is the regular denigration of those who (usually stay-at-home mothers) choose to make the home and children their work choice.  The author repeatedly refers to being "stuck at home", "relegated to the kitchen", etc...  But never mentions being "caught in the trap of breadwinner" or "tied to a paycheck".  He's part of the problem when he devalues building a community of people to take care of kids and the elderly.

I cannot  cheer on your post enough!  

I am one of those moms who CHOSE to stay home and raise my child.  I am a good student, and have a graduate degree, but most of the reason that I finished grad school is that it was important to my mom.  She wanted me to have the option of a career, and I did respect that.  I lived for graduation so that I could start a family, and I have never been happier than I have in my time as a mom.  It really twists my knickers when people refer to me as ‘stuck at home’...especially when they turn around and ask for help with childcare😉 after they have insulted me!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

I'm very torn on this. I value the caring work that people do for children or the elderly or infirm. I'm also aware that the 'golden age' of families looking after their own often involved a daughter being given no choice as to career: she was to look after her parents and that was that.

I do think you have a good point here.  However, the flip side is that I was raised under the assumption that I would have a powerful career or be useless.  My mom has come to grips with my decision, but still waxes poetic about ‘what could have been’ for me.  

I think true equality comes in having a true choice.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Hadley said:

I do think you have a good point here.  However, the flip side is that I was raised under the assumption that I would have a powerful career or be useless.  My mom has come to grips with my decision, but still waxes poetic about ‘what could have been’ for me.  

I think true equality comes in having a true choice.

Absolutely. Many people still only have constrained choices, even now. My female cousin, who hadn't married, gave up her career and was abandoned by her partner as she struggled to look after her mother. Oddly, her unmarried brother didn't seem to feel the need to be very involved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hadley said:

I think true equality comes in having a true choice.

 

As far as career v. sahm, probably. But if you find yourself with parents in failing health you just do the best with what you have because it's the right thing to do. If you have a lousy bunch of brothers and sisters who won't help, it's alarmingly unfair, but what are you going to do? Let your parents rot? ...no. 

But I mean even with kids... Once they are on the scene everyone is just doing their best with what they have, according to what they believe to be right. 

To be frank, I get tired of people saying that it's "just as good" to have kids in daycare as home with a healthy and attentive mother [my own caveats to avoid having to parse out abusive family situations for the people who feel like arguing]. Cause it's not, full stop. Maybe for the mother, according to her 'what she believe to be right' bit from above. But from a baby's POV? Absolute rubbish. It's extremely unfortunate that women have been brought low  because of their biological capacities and imperatives. But that doesn't matter one bit to the living, breathing baby in front of any given woman at any given time. And this idea, that baby is just as well off in daycare as in his own mother's arms serves only the dominant economic drivers of our time. Not families, not children, not women. 

So, here again, I don't approve of the idea that what we need to change is our conception of family. What we need to change is our whole economic and social paradigm, which makes us dependent on the definitions of things that the powerful hand down to us, whether they take reality into account or not. 

So much of it just beside the point. 

Regardless of what they are, specifically, our values are largely not being handed down from parents to children over the long haul of childhood any more. MOST children are picking up the bulk of  their values from their peers, in school, which imparts its own values. This phenomenon (as well as its ill effects) is well-documented.  But it's such a humongous and overwhelming problem. 

Sooo it comes as no surprise, if you scratch at it, that people are growing up to value not family, but peers and their standing (whatever it is) in the larger world. Likewise, it is no surprise that so many of us feel unmoored as a result of both our own actions and the actions of the people who would otherwise be available to be part of our immediate communities. So, now, "doing our best" often means cobbling things together from scratch. It's a painful and inefficient process. 

We could have gone another way on a large scale. Plenty of families do manage to do it. We could have made more room for individuality in families by being less rigid and more team-worky. We could have acknowledged that women are fully as intelligent and capable as men and made room a little to that side. We could have acknowledged that lots (though not all, guys) of men WANT to be as involved with their children, especially out of infancy, as women and made a little more room on that side, so to speak. Instead, people are scrapping the whole "family project." It's madness.  

Edited by OKBud
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's inaccurate to suggest that school-aged kids used to spend more time with their families.  I think that if anything, kids spend less time with peers / others outside the nuclear family than before.  People are afraid to send their kids out to ramble "until the streetlights come on."  People wait until their kids are college age (or even older) to let them go live somewhere else and learn a trade.  Also, work hours used to be longer.  While kids often worked in the family business/farm, that doesn't mean their parents were in the same vicinity passing down values much of the time.

Also, I personally think there is value in having many contacts with people outside as well as inside the family circle.  There is nothing wrong with being aware that others do things differently, and sometimes actually better.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, SKL said:

Finally had time to read this article, and hopefully I will get time to read the comments also.

Wanted to say a few things.

1) A lot of assumptions about correlation / causation.  He blames all of society's ills on family stuff.  But there have been those problems in all types of family structures and societies.  For example, the historic opioid stuff in China - can't get too much more familistic than traditional China. 

2) Leaving the family doesn't cause these problems, but it can highlight them as now the person is the responsibility of society vs. his own family.

3) Prosperity in the overall economy makes it easy to leave and go it alone, earlier than some people are ready.

4) A lot of the problems he blames on family structure norms are perhaps more accurately attributed to executive function problems.  The same problems that make a person unsuccessful in family life will likely make them unsuccessful in making all sorts of life choices, related to job, spending, health, crime, sex, and raising their own kids.

 

i thought the role of addictive substance use was ignored.  The brain changes when these substances are taken as a youth seem to be insurmountable.

I haven't found the extended family data the author is using to claim that it was mostly farm folks before 1920 who lived in extended groups.  My family mirrors the westward expansion; no one lived in the extended family at all from 1600s on.  they follow the custom of a gc gen child taking care of an elder in the elder's home, and in return receiving the estate. 

Edited by HeighHo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, OKBud said:

 

 

So, here again, I don't approve of the idea that what we need to change is our conception of family. What we need to change is our whole economic and social paradigm, which makes us dependent on the definitions of things that the powerful hand down to us, whether they take reality into account or not. 

Instead, people are scrapping the whole "family project." It's madness.  

 

Reminds me a lot of the saying about democracy, that it's the worst form of government, except for all the others. Perhaps family, as a social structure, is similar!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...