AVFM News and Activism: Bernard Chapin

[box icon=””]

Tonight on AVFM News and Activism we have none other than Bernard Chapin of Chapin’s Inferno who will be talking about the election last week and give his analysis of the political landscape.  We will cover how gender played a big role in the results and what it means for men and men’s rights in the future.  A staunch conservative, Chapin as long argued that the war on men is an all but entirely partisan one with the Democratic Party being the primary agent against men.  Many MRAs disagree and we are looking forward to an engaging debate with Chapin and of course with callers.

The show starts tonight, November 13, 2012 at 9 PM Eastern Time, 8 Central, which is 2:00 AM Nov 14 in London and 11 AM Nov. 14 in Brisbane.

Show Page




Addendum to this post:

After trying tactfully to allow people to speak but remind them that this is not a place for partisan bickering to drag on into a destructive and smelly fiasco that derails us from what this site is about, I see the trolls are starting to invade with nice little tidbits about which party votes for terrorists, etc., etc., blah fucking blah.

Comments are closed on this article, and if anyone tries to carry this bullshit on in another place on this site I will start using the ban hammer like I had cancer and swinging it was the fucking cure. I don’t give a fuck who you are.

Take that shit to a blue pill venue. PE

Recommended Content

42 thoughts on “AVFM News and Activism: Bernard Chapin”

  1. This could be a big show. Uncle Bern has a small army of followers on his YouTube channel. Close to six thousand subscribers at a recent counting. If they get word of it in time, it could overload the chat room. I hope BTR can handle the volume, as a fan of Chapin myself, I don’t want to miss it!

  2. Love Unkie Bern, but he’s wrong about any party having the balls to support men…some are marginally less psychotically pro-woman – that’s all

    see y’all poolside

  3. Walt Kelly used to draw a caricature of Senator Joe Mcarthy. He called it “Simple J Malarkey,” and it reminds me of Bernard. I know Chapin is popular, but frankly, he’s a doctrinaire conservative who shouts “lefty!” too often at guys who are really just moderates.

    How any educated American can endorse the GOP is beyond me, considering the current estimates show them to be 60% believers in creationism. No thanks, I’ll pass.

    1. I think men’s activists need to ask themselves an important question: are they viewing their men’s activism through the lens of ideology first, or are they looking at all ideologies through the lens of caring about men and boys and fathers?

      This is not a small question. Feminism is an ideology. So is Libertarianism. So is Marxism. So is Conservatism (as a political movement). So is Liberalism (as a political movement). So are theists who get into politics with a goal of imposing their religion on others. So are atheists who make anti-religion their core; Atheism+ wasn’t the first to make anti-theism part of their core ideology, the Marxists (socialists) and the Objectivists (Ayn Rand libertarians) came before them.

      Senator Barry Goldwater, considered the founder of America’s Conservative political movement (which only looks vaguely like conservatism in places like Canada or Australia or the UK) once famously observed that to win, you “go where the votes are.” Smart enough, but there’s a problem; he didn’t actually go where the voters were. One of his mis-steps in the 1964 Presidential election was to court racialist voters, alienating Martin Luther King and his followers, and by doing so Goldwater arguably hobbled his movement in many ways and left it a legacy it’s still working to dispel. Prior to the Goldwater campaign black voters in America were overwhelmingly Republican; by the time it was over, there were almost no black Republicans left, and black voters have remained a solidly Democratic voting bloc since then, even though for the first hundred years of its existence the Republican Party had been the party of civil rights for black people (it is the Party of Lincoln). Goldwater alienated those voters and two generations later American politics is still suffering from Goldwater’s misstep in that crucial area.

      Conservatives in the US are frequently unfairly slammed as racists when arguably that only ever represented a small subset of their numbers. But Goldwater (who was in many other ways an admirable man) not only suffered an epic defeat in that election, losing by an overwhelming majority (his opponent got over 60% of the vote), but his ideological movement, which was at its zenith with the election of Ronald Reagan, is now held most firmly by that group of activists who call themselves the Tea Party (who are mostly Libertarians and doctrinaire American Conservatives), and those folks just suffered an absolutely crushing, humiliating defeat in America’s 2012 elections, with virtually every member of that movement and its ideology expelled from office by voters across the country; I think exactly two survived the election. I have friends who are Tea Partiers, but I could have told them there was a good chance this was going to happen to them, because they got cocky and they overreached, being blinded by zealotry and ideology.

      This is something I have told black people (who in the US vote overwhelmingly Democratic), gay people, gun owners, and others: if you hitch your wagon to one political party or group or ideology, then your fate rises and falls with the fate of that party or that ideology or that group.

      As a men’s advocate and activist, I will work with anybody of any political or religious bent who is not a crazy loose cannon, and who is actively doing things to spread awareness of and sympathy and compassion for boys and men. I do not care what political party they are part of, in fact I want members of every political party to care about these things. I do not care what their religious views are either.

      Why? Because that’s how you actually make progress in politics: by being willing to work with anyone–anyone who isn’t a crazy loose cannon that is–who will work with you on the issues you care about.

      I am thus more than happy to work with Uncle Bern and his fans, but they should know I don’t embrace their ideology. I don’t, and won’t. We agree strongly on some things, and we disagree strongly on others. I am for example not an atheist, but I’m happy to work with atheists.

      I try hard not to bring my own political or religious baggage to this site, for a variety of reasons, but the biggest is that I refuse to impose my religious or political views on anyone else. I will work with reasonable, decent people of all stripes who will work on behalf of fathers and their children, and on behalf of men and boys who are suffering under an unjust system. And that’s it for me. (If you want to argue with me about issues outside these issues, you can come over to my blog and we’ll argue all day about politics and religion in other areas; many of my views on other subjects would surprise a lot of people here).

      I am to put it bluntly not a fan of Chapin’s. But he doesn’t need me to be a fan. I appreciate that he helps spread awareness of men’s issues, even if he does look at it through the lens of his ideology first. To him, I imagine they are inseparable. Oh well. That’s him, it’s not me.

      1. OneHundredPercentCotton

        You kicked me off your channel, Bern, “We don’t need guys like you around here” for pointing out the Republican party has ridden to victory for decades on the backs of innocent men with their Willie Horton dirty tricks “Tough On Crime” hysterics, resulting in the largest MALE prison population the world has ever witnessed, and it’s For Profit “Gladiator School” prison rape systems and over whelmingly “conservative” judicial system that works hand in glove with feminist lynch mob prosecutors.

        Well, Bern – to let you know, I’m not a “guy”. I’m an MRA mother (and military veteran sworn to defend YOUR Constitutional rights) whose innocent JUVENILE son was victimized by this evil system, and continues to be victimized by relentless Nazi-era Republican “anything to win” legislation.

        Look at ANY sex hysteria laws in the past three decades, and they were without fail, sponsored by Republicans. To the last one, they are ineffective, costly, and undisguised vengeance laws that have lead to beatings, shunning, vigilantism and deaths of innocents without demonstratably “saving” even a single child.

        No other country in the world has adopted these laws.

        Celebrity victim fathers have made MILLION$ off the deaths (or kidnappings) of their children under Republican backed Named-For-Dead-Children legislation. Of note, Orrin Hatch & Ed Smart’s Tracker Pal scam, John Walsh’s ineffectual but highly profitable NCMEC and outrageously un Constitutional ex post facto Adam Walsh Act, as well as Marc Lunsford, whose own son later beat a sex offender designation because of his father’s political connections.

        The Republican party is no friend of men.

      2. Bernie, do you think I haven’t read Von Mises, Hayek, Ayn Rand…? You think I don’t know about all the various flavors of Libertarianism, including Objectivism, Minarchism, Anarcho-Capitalism, etc.? Or that I don’t know Conservatism? You think I haven’t read Kristol, Buckley, Chambers? I was a 10 year long subscriber National Review for God’s sake, even wrote Buckley a fan letter and was thrilled when he responded to it (wish I hadn’t lost it).

        And as for Marxism? You might want to go look on Amazon.com for my review of The Communist Manifesto. It is not a nice review. But you know what? I know some Marxists, and I’ll work with them on the issues we share if they are for doing something about the widespread cultural misandry we live in.

        Honestly Bernie, you have no idea how much I know about political science and political philosophy and the history of various political movements. None. And you probably don’t know what most of my political views are either–you might take a Wild Assed Guess based on a few things you know about me, but odds are they’d be wrong.

        If I brought my political and religious baggage with me every time I came here, at least 3/4ths of the audience would hate me since I am anti-Libertarian (in the modern American sense), anti-Conservative (in the modern American sense), anti-Liberal (in the modern American sense), anti-Marxist, anti-Objectivist, anti-ideology period. And you can deny it all you want, libertarianism IS an ideology, even in the humorous, populist, simplified version you espouse.

        I am in fact a Classical Liberal, which is the original form of libertarianism, if you want to get right down to it. I am also as it happens a neocon (dun-dun-DUNNNNNH!!!) of the Irving Kristol/Jeane Kirkpatrick variety.

        But I don’t bring my political and religious baggage here. I mention it in passing if someone is curious or wants to ask about it, or makes a remark about it, but otherwise, I keep my yap shut. It’s this thing I have about remembering that it’s not about me, it’s about helping boys and men in a culture that treats them like shit.

        But: “Limited government is good for men as are a slashing of the bureaucracy and a return to a sound currency” isn’t much of an intellectual statement in this context, in my estimation.

        But by the way, fellow 2nd amendment nut here. If I’m ever back in Chicago, maybe we’ll meet up for a session at a shooting range. Might be fun.

        Cheers mate. Any time you want to have a debate on libertarianism, you let me know. As an ex-libertarian, I can give you all sorts of reasons why I walked away from that ideology, even if I do still have lots of libertarian friends and share some libertarian ideals and goals. I’m just glad you’ve got the Libertarians covered for us; now we can concentrate on the liberals, conservatives, and everyone else who needs convincing who does NOT share your particular form of libertarianism.

        1. I AM a classical liberal and I DO write for that site, as do some others. TMV features left wingers, right wingers, libertarians, feminists, various flavors of centrists–and me, an open and unabashed Men’s Rights Advocate and Activist. Which means that, despite efforts of certain ideologues who’ve tried to have me banned (the site ownership told them to get bent), I’m giving our issues mainstream exposure on a very high traffic site that frequently appears in sources like Yahoo and Google news.

          Frankly, I wish others at the AVfM crew would join me there, so we can keep taking this stuff to the mainstream. Anyone who’s interested should go here:


          …and look for my articles. I only put up MRA stuff once a week or so there, but it’s nice to have support when I do.

          As for your assertion about “limited government,” I don’t see what it will do to end genital mutilation of little boys, child support and alimony abuse, or give men reproductive freedom. It is not going to end hypergamy–I mean, hey, why shouldn’t a woman “trade up” if she can get a better deal with a richer man, isn’t that just “the free market?” I’m also scratching my head wondering how “limited government” (whatever that means exactly) is going to do anything to help male victims of domestic violence, rape and sexual assault and sexual abuse.. shit, I can think of a ton of areas where saying “limited government will help” is about like saying “spaghetti will help.”

          You want to assert that to be a Men’s Rights Activist I have to embrace your particular ideological flavor of Libertarianism? OK, you assert that. My answer is: No.

          As for Obamney: I tried to find any area wherein Mitt Romney would be better for boys’ and men’s issues in any significant way. I failed. Gary Johnson wasn’t going to do anything on men’s and boys’ issues that I could see, and neither were the US Taxpayer, Green, or Natural Law Party candidates. Men’s and boys’ issues were just not on the table from anyone I saw. So I had to vote on other things, because on my top priorities of the moment, NO ONE was talking about them. (Did I miss the press release where the Libertarian candidate said he’d do something to address the rash of false accusers against men? I don’t think I did.)

          At this point I’m very much a swing voter, and more concerned with local politics anyway, where the local father’s rights groups have found bipartisanship MUCH more effective than dogmatism.

          I believe if we want real change on men’s issues we want people on all parts of the political spectrum. But hey, you keep plugging with the libertarians. Somebody’s gotta do it, might as well be you. Let me know when Ron Paul comes out as an MRA, OK? 😉

      3. I do believe I can respect this statement. You’re right on target. Ideology has to take a back seat in favor of truth and common decency.

        By the way, I am not, nor have I ever been, a supporter of Atheism+

        1. It’s always tough to balance what we believe in other areas with what we believe in this area. I sort of envy people for whom everything they believe fits neatly into one tidy little ideological package, but none of that works for me. Your Mileage May Vary. (It obviously does with Chapin.)

          1. Dean, my joke every time I try and fail to fit into some neat box or other is ‘oh damn, fell off the normal curve again’
            I envy those who have found the security of a simple structure to encompass their world view. It must be restful to have answers. But I kind of like the discipline of being a Seeker of the Truth

  4. Uncle Berne is amusing if you listen to him and agree. If you disagree, it is difficult to parse out an actual argument intended to possess persuasive power. He is a conservative and Tea Partyish libertarian first and his understanding of men’s issues comes specifically framed through this political prism. Those are specific political orientations. You cannot situate a human rights movement into a political orientation. The beauty of the zeta male ideal is that it transcends political ideology, fixes to shared human values that cross ideological lines, and hits the problem where it’s really at: anthropology – not ideology.

    Besides, this is just a wildly losing bet. In the next five years you will see the GOP either figure out that it is about class and always has been, not about race, get smart about that and pivot to the center, jettison the Tea Party doing so and become a completely different (and potentially wildly effective) entity, or you will see it fad off into infamy as the White People’s Party.

    MRM isn’t about race, it isn’t about white people and the last of all places on earth you ought to expect sympathy is with a party, concerned first and foremost with seeking power and the mandate to govern, that cannot possibly afford to look soft on misogyny.

    You may as well expect the Democratic Party to dismantle the military. If that last statement sounds weird to you, your prism is interferring with your data detection.

    1. wow, please don’t use thie kind of smearing tactic that makes no sense.

      How the fuck can one deduce another person as a “white racist” from being a libertarian and tea party? (I am libertarian and I am Chinese). That is just like how feminist think for any person who disagrees with them as sexist. HA

      1. Now hold on. Augen never said in his post that conservatives are white racists. I think most would know what he meant when he said “or you will see it fad off into infamy as the White People’s Party.” It’s a question of image more than actual ideology.

        Augen’s political leanings may be apparent in his post, but his main point is that he disagrees with Chapin’s insertion of his political ideology into his MRA viewpoints.

      2. Thank you tallwheel and Feuillet, the question is whether you or not you want to have an adult conversation.

        I do not have to prove that the GOP is working out a white/minority issue as a sort of inside-the-family problem. That’s a matter writ large on the national stage and all you have to do is flip over to cnn.com, turn on the radio or TV, or listen to the next 3 conversations among GOPers you know.

        MRM profits nothing by associating with this. All political parties are effectively like law firms, only instead of offering legal services, the the product they sell is governance. The GOP is selling governance. It is a party in power, that wishes to stay in power. It will pivot any way necessary to retain power. While the GOP works out its minority/white karma and reorients to remain competitive politically, it’s really best for MRM to sit that out.

        Meanwhile, acknowledging what the broader country has acknowledged, that the GOP has minority/white issues to work out, does not mean I am calling anyone a racist, and you are wildly off base to suggest that I was.

        My own political beliefs don’t matter. That’s really my key thesis. A corollary of that is: Chapin’s beliefs don’t either.

        As an MRM, I put aside my other politics to work MRM. My own politics are that class matters a lot, race matters little. No one here needs to agree with me about that. It isn’t very important to MRM. Chapin does not sublimate his politics the same way, he is MRM through the prism of GOP.

        I can bring people to the left into this. If you are right of center, odds are good you have little sense of the potential here. But I cannot bring them into Chapin. Chapin is an entertainer for those already on the right-wing. He will have no affect at all, other than to put people off, who sit centrally or center-left.

        As far as folks on the left are concern, it seems to me that something like five or six years ago people left of far-right, as a group, decided to stop wasting their time having arguments with folks who called Democrats socialists. The charge, usually stated early in a conversation, is basically a giant flag stating “I am a bleeping idiot” and indicating the further conversation is not worthwhile because the accuser is not a partner in capitalism, he’s a tool of the political opposition. Lately, I see Democrats questioning the wisdom of this. Too many people are operating in this Manichean reality that it’s beginning to create real problems, particulary when the Manicheans lead.

        If you think Chapin makes sense for MRM I give you this example. Imagine a fictitious future where a military conflict arises with Iran.

        To lead us in that conflict you have two generals, otherwise equal. General A thinks all Iranians are crazy Muslim fascists. General B understands many Iranians are moderate Muslims or seculars who have long hated their regime.

        Which general would you put in charge?

        1. I did not honestly care much who won the Presidential election this year (I voted for a candidate but felt dirty doing it) but one thing I’m glad of: even going in, the Romney campaign admitted that they were courting middle class white voters in particular (this is their own statements, I’m just giving the facts, they were very open about it) and they were also saying this was the last time anyone would be able to run a campaign that way, implicitly admitting that even if they won they would have to switch gears for 2016.

          Thus I’m glad it’s over. Ya know why? Because one way or the other, it’s entirely obvious now that “white male” as a distinct political entity is dead. To which I as a white male say:

          GOOD, IT IS ABOUT FUCKING TIME. I do not identify as a “white male.” I identify myself as a member of the human species first, a male member of that species second, and anything else as a very distant third or lower.

          And I don’t know about you, but I am fucking sick and tired of being told the men’s rights movement is all about “white males.” In fact, that is one of the bigoted, sexist, racist things they always say about us. In fact, our critics consistently use race to marginalize and dismiss and divide us.

          If the era of the “powerful white male” as a species is over, as many on the left are now crowing, GREAT. So you can now please stop calling me an advocate for “white males” when I talk about misandry.

          I just saw it again today on twitter, some other fuckhead snarking to an MRA with a link on the status of “white males.” I had to roll my eyes. Yeah. Like all these issues we are addressing aren’t things that affect men and boys of all shapes, sizes, and colors. Yeesh.

          1. When the Democratic Party so adeptly slices and divides the electorate into every special identifiable group BUT white males…it’s not the GOP that’s the problem.

            Fomenting discontent against the privilage white male class to keep Class/Gender/Racial warfare alive was a strategy, because it worked.

            Ignore it at your own peril.
            It’s here and its very real.

          2. I just love it. All the polemic arguing. lolololol Meanwhile. the powers that be fuck us all and laugh their way to the bank.

            More blue pill dope anyone?

          3. I’ll second that. Let’s take the “white” out of men’s rights. I’m bothered every time “white” is added when making an argument about males. This is the MRM, not the WMRM.

        2. People on the left are not too far to the left to support men’s rights. Men’s rights are too far to the left for most on the left to support them. -At least that’s the way I see it.

        3. Seems MRA’s of different political ideals tend to get along fine as long as one of them doesn’t start claiming ‘You must be an X to be a true MRA’ or ‘No Y can be a supporter of men’s issues.’

    2. What this thread has helped to confirm (for me at least) is the great wisdom in AV4M and most of it’s supporters to take a strictly non partisan view and approach to it’s activism in it’s communication with and reach-out to others.
      We should learn from those who oppose our granting of equal human rights – they and their pandering helpers are present and very influential in both mainstream party’s.
      Let’s face facts we are already facing an unfavourable demographic i.e. there are more women voters than men and by all accounts women are more concerned about perceived issues concerning their own sex than they are about issues concerning both sexes equally and those of men.
      If the same were true in reverse the uphill struggle would not be so bad but due to often misplaced chivalry etc it sadly is not.
      On top of this it is all too common to hear of those in public office or in positions of great influence admitting that there are a great many things they dare not do due to fear of being seen to oppose those claiming to represent womens wishesinterests.
      The need therefore for us to transend such partisan politics should be blatantly clear and like I said this thread is educational on why this need should be taken very seriously. Just my 2 cents.
      By the way I haven’t had the time to listen to the show yet but from what has been written in this thread was sufficient to inspire my remarks above.
      **This is a late edit – I had not realised I had posted this comment as a reply to Bernard – this was meant as a comment overall and it is not an issue of taking political sides as I hope my remarks above made perfectly clear. 🙂

      1. What this thread has helped to confirm (for me at least) is the great wisdom in AV4M and most of it’s supporters to take a strictly non partisan view


    3. Speaking strictly from a historical perspective: historically, Republicans were from their founding (around 1860) the party of civil rights and all about equality for all people, black people in particular. Also, they were behind the push for Women’s Suffrage, without them the 19th Amendment wouldn’t have happened.

      Republicans were also the primary impetus for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which conservative Republican stalwart Everett Dirksen of Illinois, the Senate Minority Leader, made happen with the strong support of President Lyndon Johnson over the segregationist wing of the Democratic Party–Johnson got it passed by working with the Republican minority and pealing off just enough Democrat votes to make it happen. Johnson also needed Dirksen’s help to overcome a filibuster by Democratic stalwarts Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.

      Read up on Everett Dirksen some time, he’s one of our country’s great civil rights heroes, and too often forgotten.

      By most accounts I’ve seen, up until 1964 Martin Luther King himself was a Republican for most of his life. In that era, about 90% of black voters were Republican.

      But there was a shift. Barry Goldwater, in his famous 1964 Presidential Campaign, went against his previous strong anti-segregation record and actively courted Segregationist voters in the South. In answer as to why, he famously observed that when you go hunting for duck, you go where the ducks are, by which he meant, segregationists were where he thought he could get votes. This completely alienated a shit-ton of black voters, and most black voters moved promptly out of the Republican Party, in enormous droves. There are other factors beyond that for why black voters mostly stayed Democrat, which I could write a whole essay on it, but it wasn’t just this one incident; this one incident, however, touched off a hostility between the black community and Republicans that’s been ongoing–but thankfully, softening–for almost 50 years now.

      It also goes back to my repetition of why I’m not interested in partisanship. If you’re convincing conservatives, Republicans, etc. that they need to care about men’s rights and boys’ rights and all those things, great. We have other people we need to convince, IMO, and I simply refuse to accept that we must all believe all the same things in order to work on men’s issues.

  5. This show was horrible. Right-Wing jackoffs spewing nothing but hatred. This isn’t going to get the MRM anywhere. Our target audience is guys in their ’20’s who are smart enough to realize something’s wrong. Telling them that they’re morons because they care about their fellow neighbors will see us as fringe whackos. And, you’re guilty with them, Paul Elam. I listened to the whole show. I was going to call in, but when I heard the gang-up they did on that Canadian caller, I saved my minutes and my breath.
    You know why the GOP lost the election? It’s because they had a weak candidate. This show really depressed me as an MRA. We will NEVER realize our goals without bipartisan support. That is the truth.
    Wake-The-Fuck-Up already.

    1. They will flare up from time to time. It is the nature of the beast, but I assure you that all partisan politics will be limited to the occasional boil over in the comments.

      The editorial policy remains the same. No partisan politics.

      But I think the occasional boil over is good. It serves to remind us that some MRAs are still one political comment or remark away from swallowing a blue pill.

      1. No problem at all, Bern. These things have to be vetted, and after all the post is about you.

        I think it is good for as long as it doesn’t drag out into stupid pissing match.

        Cheers, bro!

  6. The Democratic Party is the party of single women, minorities, gays, unions, those making less than $50K per year, guilty young urban white guys and aging hippies.

    The Republican Party is the party of old rich white men, and a few married white women who oppose abortion.

    The Democratic Party wants government mandated and enforced social and economic justice carried out against the “privilaged white male class”.

    The Republican Party refuses to acknowledge people by class, gender or race – – but rather as individual sovereign citizens seperate from any indentifiable group.

    It’s MUCH easier to organize and tailor your messaging to identifiable groups than it is the “hard to pin down” individual. We are now a nation of identifiable groups, each with their own agenda they expect the government to fulfill.

    It’s too bad Democrats won’t include Men’s Rights under their diverse broad TENT of inclusivity, human rights sensitivity and equal rights. I’ve written Nancy Pelosi about it, but haven’t heard back. I’ll let you know.

    1. OneHundredPercentCotton

      Your Democrat list was pretty complete.

      You neglected to list religious extremists, military and Police(in spite of their union-ism) in the Republican column.

  7. I encourage everyone to take a good long look at this thread. It is the perfect example of why I won’t allow a single article on this site that endorses a political party.

    We are a totally fucking brainwashed culture, legions of people instructed to tear at each others throats like killer robots over two political parties that both threw the citizenry overboard a long, long time ago.

    It is symptomatic of dumbed down political divisiveness that our leaders count on so they can do whatever they want as we act out our collective powerlessness on each other, instead of taking on the avaricious assholes that trashed our rights so they could control us and steal from us.

    If there is anything that will make a man near as stupid and destructive as a vagina, it is mindless belief in a political party that does not give a rat’s ass about the people supporting it.

    Some people need to skip the red pill and go straight for the red suppository.

Leave a Comment

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