On Family

Dear Michelle,

It is very common to hear family lauded as the most important aspect of any person's life. This is especially true during the holiday season, in the months leading up to Thanksgiving and Christmas. But family is not always a blessing. This is most evident in the fact that, in many poverty-stricken areas, children's favourite holiday is Halloween. In more affluent areas, it is more common to hear Thanksgiving or Christmas chosen. A large part of the reason for this is that children in impoverished areas are tired of having their expectations of family togetherness shattered by social and financial realities.

Some families are lucky. In fact, you could probably say that most families are lucky. For many people, getting together with relatives is not a cause for dread.

But we must always remember that this is not true for everybody. There are stories all around of people who are in families that do not provide them with any benefit. Many children who live in abusive families would be better off without their family. Many others are disowned by family members who believe that being gay is evil. Such people are often left to fend for themselves, becoming homeless because they have no one to take care of them. Still other families are oppressive, refusing to allow any dissent in thought or deed.

I once heard people talking about the difference between one's biological family, and one's logical family (notice the play on words; by removing the bio- from biological, we are left with logical).

Our culture places enormous value and importance on biological family. This ideology has been enshrined in western law, which views the biological father as the 'real' parent. This is despite the fact that the only requirement to be a biological father is that the first sperm to reach the egg happens to be the one that was produced in his body instead of someone else's.

I believe that the definition of father should be changed to reflect reality. A father is someone who loves you and cares for you, who raises you and comforts you and provides for you. If a man does these things, he is a father, regardless of whether he contributed to your genetic makeup.

So as you navigate life, always remember that you must do what's best for you. Sometimes, that means cutting off contact from your biological family, and choosing to surround yourself with a family that you have chosen for yourself. That is, find a logical family for yourself. And just as importantly, to encourage others to do the same.

On Gender Issues

Dear Michelle,

One thing you will have to keep in mind as you navigate the treacherous waters of adolesence (and, for that matter, even throuought adulthood) is that the matter of male/female is a very complex and convoluted one.

For starters, the issue is much more diverse than a simple male/female dichotomy. The truth is that there are thousands of "switches" in the human genetic code that determines masculinity or femininity, and not all of them get switched (or very few of them). While on average, most people have the majority of their genetic markers flipped in one direction or another, there are some people who have a more balanced set. It is less true to see the population as 50% male and 50% female, but more as an inverted bell curve, with the majority of people at one end or the other while a small portion of individuals drift towards the centre (the area of androgyny).

But even if we discount the small percent in the middle, the question of man vs. woman is still a complicated one. There are many people who feel that there are (and should be) exactly two genders, each separated by specific behaviour traits (this example being best summarised by the statement in a character from Neil Gaiman's Sandman: "[If God] makes you a boy, you dress in blue, He makes you a girl, you dress in pink." On the other hand, many people believe that there is no difference at all between men and women. Personally, I think that the truth (as with so many things) is somewhere in the middle. In some ways, men and women are the same, yes, but in many others, they are different.

Ignoring the obvious physical differences, there's the fact that men and women think differently. It's been proven in study after study that males and females use different parts of the brain to accomlish the same task. Men generally excel at three-dimensional reasoning, while women tend to navigate by landmarks. Women are better at multi-tasking than men, and generally focus on details and specifics. Men are usually physically stronger, and do better with understanding the overall general nature of a situation. 

This does not mean that men and women should be treated differently; each deserves the same rights. But the fact is that they are different, and you must always remember this. And more to the point, we must also remember to acknowledge those people that fall in the middle of the male/female spectrum, and deal with them accordingly. You must also understand that the different ways that men and women generally perceive the world will be guaranteed to result in miscommunications and misunderstandings. It seems obvious, but many a serious disagreement has resulted from men expecting women to think like men, and vice versa.

On Self-Determination

Dear Michelle, 

One of the things that I think is very important is the ability to define oneself. I often feel that people too frequently allow their identity to be formed by outside forces. Just a few examples of this include nationality, social class, place of residence, even something as simple as a name. My father used to chastise me for being overly passive in my life; one of the phrases he'd say to me most often during my childhood was,  "I'm just a twig floating along on the river of life." He was saying that I let other people choose my actions for me, and I would simply accept it.

In a way, he was right, but in many others, I feel he had sorely misjudged me. For example, I despise the name that appears on legal documents that refer to me (such as my driver's license or my passport). I don't consider that my real name; I've never had my legal name changed, mostly because I can't afford it, but secondarily because I don't see that the government's official recognition of a name makes it real. This is an argument I've had with a number of people. Most of them don't understand how I can consider a name "real" if the government doesn't acknowledge it. But in my opinion, I make my own destiny, not my government.

People also become overly attached to the place where they live. University sports teams, for example, are ardently supported by the students who attend that university. But just because you attend classes at an institution that happens to sponsor an athletic programme doesn't mean you must cheer for that team (or, in fact, that you have to cheer for any team at all).

People often choose their hometown (or home state, or even their home country) as their "favourite." But if you look at it objectively, that's not a valid criterion for choosing a favourite. You should base your decision on impartial factors, such as weather, culture, leisure activities, cost of living, and so forth. "Because I live here" is not a good reason.

If you do decide that your given name, home, university, &c., are your personal preferences, that's fine, so long as you have a viable justification for those decisions. But if you decide that you prefer something (or somewhere) other than what you were assigned by fate, then no one should attempt to convince you otherwise. Unfortunately, people often will, but these people speak from an unreasoned position. It should be your decision, and yours alone.

On Rules

Dear Michelle,

As you are no doubt aware, the world is populated by rules. These rules come in many forms: laws, school rules, rules for games, community rules, and the ones I most detest, social rules.

The world is a big scary place. It can often be overwhelming to try to think about what is possible. And many things are possible; consider that the only rules that cannot be violated are the so-called "physical laws." Gravity pulls you down, wind resistance slows you down, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, &c. Beyond this, all rules are arbitrary. I believe we do these things because it is easier to forbid certain behaviour than to accept the enormity of what is possible in the world. Honestly, the only thing preventing men from wearing dresses is social pressure, and their acceptance of this pressure.

There are two things that you must understand: the first is that simply having a rule does not guarantee compliance. Many people fail to grasp this simple concept, but the truth is that there will always be someone who ignores the rules and does whatever he wants. If you pass a law forbidding people to eat meat, there will still be people who eat meat. The law-abiding citizens will throw their hands up in despair, saying, "It's against the law! Why are people still eating meat?" But just because it's "against the rules" doesn't mean the someone won't still do it.

The second thing is that rules are arbitrary. They are put in place for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad, but regardless, they are still created by people, and the only way to enforce them is through an arbitrary system of authority. They aren't like physical laws, which cannot be violated; anyone can commit murder, but nobody can fly without mechanical assistance.

I mentioned social mores earlier. As I said, I despise them above all other forms of rules. Certain codes of conduct are useful, in that they provide a framework for amicable interaction between people, but some rules are simply unnecessary. There was recently an article in a British newspaper bemoaning the "crisis" in the cutlery industry; forks were outselling knives by two-to one! This indicated that people were eating more takeaway and eating less at home, which meant that they no longer needed knives, and this indicated a decline in "proper eating manners," which was a sign of the downfall of British culture. And in my opinion, why on earth does it matter how anyone eats their food? This is an example of a stupid, useless, and unnecessary rule.

On Diversity

Dear Michelle,

Humans are social creatures. This is both a blessing and a curse; while it enables us to work together to accomplish feats much greater than we could do alone, it also means we tend to suffer from exclusionary behaviour. Those people who don't "follow the rules" are shunned from society.

But we must always remember that diversity is essential. People tend to shy away from those they believe aren't "normal," but normality is, by definition, the average. We must never forget that those who are average don't achieve greatness. Many of the people who have made the world a better place, such as Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Thomas Edison, or Martin Luther King, Jr., were not average people. They were not "normal."

Being abnormal isn't a guarantee of greatness, by any means (we must also remember that there are those on the other end of the spectrum who are also not average; terrible men like John Wayne Gacy or Son of Sam). But one thing is certain: being normal is a guarantee that you won't be great.

There is a song called "Standing on the Shoulders of Freaks," which takes a humorous look at the little insanities and idiosyncrasies of some of the most influential people in history. While it is meant as a funny song, it does have a valid point. The most influential people in history are anything but normal.

Never feel as though you have to fit in. Always do what is right for you. Just remember that there are different definitions of normal, depending on who you're talking to; for example, someone with violently pink dreadlocks and loads of piercings who wears black clothing would not be considered abnormal amongst goths. But whoever you decide to be, remember that "normal" is not an important characteristic.

On Change

Dear Michelle,

The world is a constantly changing place. Even if we ignore the changes that we ourselves create, such as new technology like computers and mobile phones, the very fact that people age and die is a form of change. We can discount humans entirely, and we realise that the world continues to change: plants and animals affect the world, and the earth itself is constantly shifting and changing. Nothing is truly permanent.

And yet people behave as though permanence is assured. In reality, people are very much afraid of change. Across America, there are cities and towns where money and work is constantly being poured into "revitalizing" the old, decaying parts of town to "save" them from the onslaught of modernization. Where the downtown area once was the centre of a city's shopping, it is now falling into disrepair as people instead choose to buy at large super-centres like Wal-Mart and Target. Those negatively impacted by this shift in shopping habits, like the shop owners in the downtown area, complain about "unfair competition" and insist on wasteful programmes that are intended to revitalise the area, but in the end, have no real effect on where people go to make their purchases.

The fact is that smaller speciality shops are obsolete, but the shop-owners aren't willing to admit it. Just as there is no longer a need for coopers, since nobody uses barrels any more, there will soon be no need for small specialty shops, because their function has been subsumed by a newer alternative.

Another example is the current health care debate in America. Part of the reason that many people resist the idea is because it's a major change, and they're not willing to accept that. I saw an interview with a man who said "Americans like their health care system the way it is." Which, in part, translates to "Americans are afraid of changing things."

The fact is, the world is a large and often overwhelming place, and it can be difficult to understand it and your role within it. This is only complicated by the fact that it is always changing and inconstant. Once you've learned how things work and where you fit in, something changes, and you have to start learning all over again. But unfortunately, change is inevitable, and so it's better to accept that the way things once were they will never be again.

Don't get me wrong: not all change is good. But no matter what, change will happen. It's best to be prepared for it. Don't be like the old nostalgic folk yearning for a better time; there was no better time. It only looks better in memory.

On Monogamy

Dear Michelle,

As you approach adulthood, you will find yourself considering marriage, if even in a long-term planning attitude. In respect to this, I believe that it is important that you understand that humans aren't actually naturally monogomous. A lot of people will argue that this isn't true, but they are arguing from an unreasoned viewpoint.

This isn't to say that humans don't have the ability to be monogomous. It's simply the case that it's not the default. Studies have shown that after a few years in a relationship, humans have a tendency to want to find a new partner. Very often, even while in a relationship, people will find they have a desire to have romantic and/or sexual encounters with other people.

Part of the problem is the "wife/concubine" dilemma. In essence, there are two things that a person needs from a mate: security and genetic material. For men, security means a partner who will be a good mother, a stable companion who will help care for his offspring. For women, security is a provider, someone who will stay with her through pregnancy and child-rearing to care for her and her children. Genetic material, on the other hand, is expressed as physical attractiveness. Men want a woman with good child-bearing potential (wide hips, large breasts, healthy-looking skin and body, &c.), and women want a strong man who will produce children that can survive hardship to reach adulthood.

The problem here is that security and genetic material rarely come in the same package. Thus, people often employ a dual strategy. They marry for security but mate for genetic material. Men will marry the woman who will be a good mother, but they have nothing to lose by casting a few extra seeds around to see if they take. Women will marry the man who can provide for them, but sometimes have a tendency to find a different male to actually sire the children.

Some people follow more of one strategy than the other, but the capacity is always there. In particular, women often prefer the "wife" strategy, because they have a greater need for a supporter during childrearing, while men tend towards the "concubine" strategy, since they have less to lose if they lack a permanent mate. And again, some people do successfully lead monogomous lives. But it's not the natural and inherent state for humans. This information will be essential to you when you start engaging in romantic or sexual partnerships, and if anyone tries to argue that monogomy is the only acceptable, viable, or inherently natural option, just remember that they aren't speaking from a reasonable viewpoint.