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.

On Religion

Dear Michelle,

As you grow, you will find that a great many of the controversies and disagreements that people have arise as a result of religious beliefs. For example, the issue of abortion is often fought across religious boundaries. Religion is, in itself, not a bad thing, but the uses to which it is often put can be atrocious indeed.

One important thing to consider when discussing religion is the tendency (especially among Americans) to equate religion with Christianity, when there are other religions in existence. It's not as simple as atheists vs. Christians; not only does this discount agnostics, Muslims, and Jews, but Hindus, Shintoists, Buddhists (never mind that Buddhism is, technically, more a philosophy than a religion), pagans such as Wiccans, and countless other theologies. 

But the thing that astounds me about religious people is that most of them are not willing to let other faiths practise their chosen customs. Just as one example: in America right now, one of the most controversial topics is gay marriage. The vast majority of people who oppose gay marriage do so on religious grounds. They insist that the Bible forbids homosexuality, and thus the secular law should also forbid homosexuality. The fallacy being committed in this argument, however, is that the Bible does not apply to all people (nor should it). The laws laid out in the Bible cannot be said to apply to atheists or pagans, and yet Christians insist that it should.

Christian doctrine states that the faithful are to minister to the non-believers in order to save their souls, but that doctrine has been twisted to the point where the believers are not willing to allow others a choice in the matter. Like the 16th and 17th century missionaries performing coerced mass baptisms on Native Americans, most modern Christians are determined to prevent anyone from committing a sin, even if other people don't believe in the Christian religion. And in my opinion, that action is nothing short of taking away another person's civil liberties.

Again, religion is a good thing, bringing comfort and peace to people who need it. Which religion is the right one? I don't know. Are any of them right? I don't know that either. I know what I believe, and I will help you to explore all the possibilities so that you may discover what it is that you believe, if anything. But you must always remember that no matter what you believe, you must never force another person to believe the same thing, nor even to act as if they believe the same thing. Because what most people tend to forget about religion is that it is a deeply personal thing, and you should never let anyone tell you what to believe, how to worship, or how to live.

On Love

Dear Michelle,

Aside from sex, there are few things as compelling as the idea of love. Almost everyone wants it, and they will do almost anything to get it. The problem is that few people understand what love really is. As a result of millennia of poetry and fairy tales, and nearly a century of cinema, people have come to the conclusion that love is a very powerful and overwhelming emotion. But that's not at all what love is like.

Love is actually a very subtle emotion. If you're feeling an unceasing desire to be with someone, that's probably not love. It might be lust, and it might even be amorola. Amorola is a word that I created to refer to the initial period of romantic infatuation felt between two people in a relationship. Psychological studies have determined that humans go through a distinct phase at the beginning of their relationship in which they feel overwhelmed with a desire to be with one another. During this period, they tend to aggrandise their partners' strengths and ignore their weaknesses, in a sort of rose-coloured-glasses effect. It's the time in which they enjoy the stupidly-happy-silly-giggly time of their  togetherness. But there was no name for this phenomenon, so I devised one.

After amorola, there is a period of "settling in," during which the partners magnify their faults, both their own and their partners'. This has been described as the trial-by-fire stage, in which the partners determine if they are suited for a long-term relationship. In both of these phases, it is possible that the two individuals are in love, but as I said, love is a subtle emotion, so it's often hard to tell through the fog of the amorola or the settling-in firestorm.

The important thing to remember is this: when you watch a romantic movie in which the main characters end up together at the end, they aren't necessarily experiencing love. They are in the initial thrush of amorola. So just remember that when you become overpowered by an attraction to someone, it doesn't mean that you are in love with that person. It usually takes about two years for amorola to fade, so the best advice is to wait at least that long before making any serious decisions, such as marriage. That person may be the one for you, but you won't know until the amorola is gone.

On Sex

Dear Michelle,

You will find that there are few, if any, topics of greater import, controversy, scandal, and emotional involvement than sex. People have a wide range of views on the sex act, with some believing that it is inherently evil and sinful, with others placing no more importance upon it than drinking water.

One thing that you have to understand is that sex (regardless of whether it's homosexual or heterosexual), in itself, is neither good nor evil, but can be used for either. Rape, for example, is a horrible and atrocious use of an act that has potential for great joy. At the other end of the spectrum, it can be used as an affirmation of love between two people who are deeply committed to one another. Likewise, sex is a very primal and feral instinct, bred into us since we came into existance, but like all human activities, can be elevated to something much more sublime.

The important thing to remember is this: many people will tell you what sex means, and how and when and with whom you are supposed to have sex, but in the end, it will always be your decision. Many religious people firmly believe that sex should only be used for the specific purpose of having children. Others see sex as a recreation, to be done as often and with as many different partners as possible. I personally see it as somewhere in between, as a powerful and enjoyable pursuit that has the possibility for greater meaning of love and partnership. But in the end, it's your decision.

Some people think that you should be a virgin when you are married, and have sex only with your spouse. Others believe that you should get some practise and ensure that you are sexually compatible with you partner before making a lifelong commitment to remain monogomous to that person. Still others think that sexual promiscuity is compatible with emotional commitment, and engage in sex with a variety of partners despite being married. And there are others who think that there is no room for emotional bonds, and use sex as a purely physical source of pleasure. In fact, there are even some asexual people who feel little or no sexual desire for anyone.

All of these are valid viewpoints, and I will not tell you which is right for you. That is your decision to make. And whichever decision you make is right for you, and I will always love you and support you no matter what decision you make, so long as you are careful and safe in your decision.

On Classism

Dear Michelle,

One of the things that most upsets me is the way that people view and treat the poor. The situation has existed for as long as society has included enough opportunities for a significant gulf between the rich and the poor. Those who have little in the way of income and property are viewed as detestable by those who live lives of luxury. They are often regarded as savage, uncouth, and barbaric.

However, it is important to remember that they are still human. It is true that children learn what they live, and anyone who grew up in a poverty-stricken environment would turn out similarly. I once attended a seminar in which the speaker described the differences between lower-, middle-, and upper-class society. It wasn't something I'd thought of before, but there are certain things that you only learn to do by being part of a specific social class. For example, upper class people generally know how to manage servants, organise social functions like charity balls, and influence politicians. Middle class people are more likely to know how to balance a checkbook, function in parent-teacher associations, and plan errands around children's activities. Lower class people often gain the skills of finding free food, hiding from police, and navigating welfare bureaucracies.

The reason this is true is because people have no need (or no opportunity) to practise the skills of the other classes. In a nutshell, the reason that poor people act "uncivilised" is because it is necessary for their survival. I was once told that the reason that lower class citizens have such a pathological obsession with respect is because it's the one thing they have that they don't need to pay for. It doesn't matter what car you drive if your neighbours know not to mess with you.

The point is that while the behaviour of the poor people is sometimes unpleasant, it's no reason to discriminate against them, and I see this sort of bigotry often. It makes me sick, and I hope very much that you never succumb to the sort of elitist attitudes often held by the well-off.

On Conspicuous Consumption

Dear Michelle,

I'm sure you've noticed that many people insist on spending more money than they really need to. They are often buying totally unnecessary items, which may fall into one of several categories. There are some things that are purely decorative (knick-knacks, figurines, posters and other wall hangings), some that have a super-specialised function that can be performed by other items (salad-shooters, for example, which serve only to slice and shred vegetables, even though that can be done perfectly well by other more mundane tools), some that are nonessential but people think are required (such as televisions, mobile phones, video game consoles, and home stereo equipment), and some that are simply frivolous and pointless (a lot of clothing falls into this category).

This rampant consumerism is called "conspicuous consumption." It is, in essence, spending money simply to show off that you have money to spend. Simply put, it's the wealthy rubbing their wealth in the noses of the less well-off. "I have so much money that I can afford to throw it away on unnecessary stuff like huge cars that get 2 miles per gallon or less!" is the message they're trying to convey.

Of course, money isn't the only thing that people spend in their quest for conspicuous consumption. They also waste time. The idea is that they're suggesting "I am so wealthy I can afford to stand around here accomplishing nothing of any use whatsoever." A perfect example of this is golf. Of all the sports that have ever been created, none has as ridiculously an unbalanced ratio of time spent doing nothing to time of activity.

The point in all this is that you will eventually find yourself in a situation where you are tempted to buy something that you really and truly don't need, just because you can and it passingly catches your fancy. I would recommend that you analyse anything you want to do or to buy, and decide if you really need it. For that matter, when you get the urge to throw something away, you should contemplate whether this urge is rooted in the item's having outlived its usefulness, or if it's simply no longer "in style." You can save a lot of money this way, and that money can be spent on more reasonable pursuits, such as a vacation or a hobby about which you are truly serious. And if nothing else, you can always donate the extra money to charity, so that people who can't even afford food will benefit from those people who really do have more money than they need.

On bigotry

Dear Michelle,

One of the most important things to me is that you do not grow up harbouring hatred towards other people. You will find many types of prejudice in this world, based on anything from ethnicity to gender to religion to nationality to wealth. This is the result of the human condition, as we are, underneath all the pretense and self-deception, still animals. We are exceptionally intelligent animals, being far more developed than other species but we are still animals.

A result of this fact is that we still have those animal instincts that we must work very hard to overcome. One of the instincts ingrained into us is a sense of selfishness. This has always been necessary, to an extent, for survival. But in the complicated world we have developed, it can lead to all sorts of conflict.

It is natural for people to see themselves as superiour. This often gets taken to extremes, and develops to the point of hatred for anyone who is different. Such hatred manifests as bigotry, which can be directed towards any number of targets. In our culture, the most prominent examples of this include the racism directed towards African Americans as a result of the slave trade, the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust, and the disenfranchisement of women as a result of Victorian attitudes. Other less well-known examples include the treatment of the poor (especially during the Industrial Revolution, but even today), the interment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and the mass deportations of Mexican-Americans during the 1930s.

It even manifests in smaller ways. Citizens of one state in America will develop intense, unthinking hatred for another state. Oklahomans and Texans hold a deep rivalry for one another, as do people from Michigan versus Ohio. It seems to me that the closer a group of people is to someone, the more that person will value the group. That is, a person may defend his family against others in his city, but defend the city against those from other towns, and again prefers his state to other states, but his country over other countries. Likewise, someone of Indian descent supports other Indians against those from different ethnicities. And so on.

My point is, there is no longer a need for this. Bigotry is an outmoded concept that we, as a species, have yet to give up. But if there's one thing that I want you to learn as you grow, it's that all people are worthwhile, and if you do decide to hate anyone, that you do it for who that specific person is, rather than where he was born, or what religion he follows, or what ethnicity he belongs to, or how much money he makes, or any other specious criteria.

On censorship

Dear Michelle,

It is possible that, as you go through high school, you will find that there are certain books and poems and other pieces of literature or other art that are denied to you. Just a couple examples of books that have been removed from school libraries and reading lists include the Harry Potter series, The Catcher in the Rye, Brave New World, and Nineteen Eighty Four.

It is my firm belief that no book should ever be banned, or in any way restricted from public access. But there are many people who do not like what some books say. In the examples I've given above, the Harry Potter books are seen as anti-Christian, while The Catcher in the Rye contains discussion of a sexual nature. Brave New World was seen as overly negative and has been challenged for its themes of drugs, sex, and suicide. Nineteen Eighty Four was seen as pro-communism (despite the fact that the book was very much a criticism of Joseph Stalin).

But the people who are offended by these books are not content to simply avoid reading them; they feel that they should be eradicated so that NO ONE can read them. Part of this is because they think that the world would be better if "unpleasant" topics did not exist, but partly it's because they don't know how to deal with unpleasantries.

However, the sad fact is that the world can often be an unpleasant place. As you go through life, you will occasionally encounter people who disagree with you, or who say things that bother you, or do things that offend you. It's inevitable; the world does not go out of its way to make you happy. Wouldn't it be better to learn to handle offensive subjects in a mature and rational manner than to try to hide behind censorship and self-delusion?

If is for this reason that I will never hide "questionable" or "objectional" materials from you, and in fact, will sometimes encourage you to read such books. And if you ever encounter censorship yourself, I hope that you will fight against it. Because no matter how bad the book may be, banning it is always worse.

On Adversity

Dear Michelle,

Something that may be useful to remember is that an easy life does not equip you with characteristics necessary to take care of yourself. If you constantly have to struggle to accomplish your goals, then you will be accustomed to such adversity, and will not shy away from "rolling up your sleeves and getting your hands dirty."

Many people have never had to face this reality. They are given everything they need by their parents, or other people in authority. I know that in my case, I was a very intelligent child. As such, my teachers often let me get away with a lot of things that I really shouldn't have gotten away with.

Allow me to share with you an anecdote from my high school days. I had a tendency to blow off homework, mostly because I was lazy and I couldn't be bothered. Sadly, I was smart enough that even without the practise required by most people, I still got decent grades because I generaly did well on tests and in-class assignments. This led to one year in which my parents got a phone call from my English teacher. This was odd anyway, because I wasn't living with my parents at the time. But the reason she had phoned was because in the first nine weeks, I hadn't turned in a single homework assignment.

In the course of the conversation, it became apparent that according to the teacher's grading policy, I should have been getting an F, but the teacher was going to give me a C anyway because I was so smart, she just couldn't bring herself to flunk me. This led to a conversation in which the vice-principal of the school said to my father, "I think this is the first time I've ever had a parent upset because we aren't flunking the student."

But my father wanted me to learn that I have to work to achieve my goals. This is a lesson that I later came to appreciate; I took ten years to complete university because I had no study skills to speak of. I expected to coast through my classes on my intelligence, and was sorely disappointed to find that it didn't work in that environment.

But the point is that if you grow up having to earn everything you want, you will be able to accomplish your goals when you become an adult. Contrast this to the modern predominant method of parenting, in which you give your child everything he wants because it will make him "happy," and you see that we are raising a generation of adults who will demand everything and not want to do the work necessary to achieve it.

This is why I don't spoil you. I know you don't appreciate it now, but I hope that at some point later, when you are an adult and looking back on all you have accomplished, you will understand the gift I have given you, and appreciate it.

On Conformity

Dear Michelle,

By the time you reach adolesence, you will have already encountered the inherent human need for conformity. Infants have no preconceptions, and are equipped with completely maleable minds that are open to all possibilities. By the time they reach age twelve, their brains have begun a "pruning" process in which unused neural pathways are removed, and it becomes more difficult to create new ones.

In short, by age twelve, those things which a child has not experienced become harder for that person to accept.

This leads to a strong sense of conformity. Twelve is only a rough cut-off point; the process begins earlier and sometimes finishes earler. But those people who do not learn about a lifestyle or culture when young struggle to accept it as a viable life choice. Homosexuality is just one example of this phenomenon; others range from minor deviations from the cultural norm (like my decision to refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages) to seemingly bizarre differences in other cultures (like the Kayan Lahwi people in Mayamnar who adorn the necks of their women with long coils that appear to enlongate the neck).

Once, this was an important part of human society. In order to survive, people needed to band together into groups to pool their resources and abilities. The actions of one person affected the entire group. If someone did not act with the best interests of his people, it could be very damaging to the others. As such, those who did not conform to the "rules" would be cast out. 

But in our modern world, this is no longer necessary. We, as a species, have developed to the point where individualism is no longer harmful. Yet the old traits are still present; we have not yet bred the desire for conformity out of ourselves.

This leaves you with a terrible dilemma: do you conform to the desires of your companions for the purpose of being accepted? Or do you remain true to yourself and your own desires, at the cost of acceptance?

Remember, of course, that you are my daughter, and I will always love you, no matter which decision you make. But it is your decision, and you must choose carefully. There is a cost to both paths: either you sacrifice your sense of self, or you sacrifice the ability to make many friends. It's not fair, and it's not right, but that's the way it is. Either way, there is one thing that you must remember: you must never feel superiour to those who have made different choices than you have. You do not have the right to belittle them, or to treat them poorly.

On Beauty

Dear Michelle,

As you become an adolescent, you will find that physical appearance starts meaning a great deal. People tend to be judged on their looks. Women who are considered beautiful will be treated better than those who are not. 

This is not limited to teenagers. If anything, it gets worse in adulthood. If you watch music videos on television, you will notice that there is no such thing as an ugly female artist. The sad fact of the matter is that ugly women don't sell records; even though they're in the music business, their popularity is often determined more by their appearance than by their music. This was highlighted in the Susan Boyle scenario: a forty-something frumpish unmarried woman walks out on stage to sing, and the audience and judges laugh at her. They are stunned when she actually sings well.

Sadly, people have come to equate beauty with quality. They tend to think that if you are beautiful, you are also talented, and if you are ugly, you are also incompetent.

But what's truly sad about this is that the ideal standard of beauty is arbitrary. Fashion designers, models, magazines, and other mainstream media have collaborated to create an unrealistic vision of what "beautiful" is. Women often go to ridiculous lengths to try to achieve this look, spending inordinate amounts of money, undergoing horrendous procedures, and otherwise being hideously cruel to themselves. And for that matter, also often hideously cruel to anyone that doesn't meet the "standard."

You must be prepared for this. But there is good news: while most men are brainwashed into desiring only those women who fit the artificial image of beauty, there are some who prefer a more natural look. Where most men are only attracted to skinny women, some men prefer a larger fram. Most men prefer large lips, but some like thin lips. Most men prefer enormous breasts, but some men like a smaller-chested woman. And so on.

The important thing to remember is this: whatever beauty you may or may not have, the best partner for you is someone who loves you for who you are, rather than for what you look like. If you find such a mate, then that is worth more than all the beauty you can buy. And no matter what you look like, there will always be at least one person who thinks you are beautiful.

On Money

Dear Michelle,

One day, you will be faced with the paradox of money. On the face of it, money does not seem to be a very complex subject; people go to work, for which they are paid money, which they then spend on items that the need, such as food and shelter, or on things they want, such as video games and books.

But it is not as simple as that. People have a tendency to define social status by income. Even in early school years, you will find that people begin sorting themselves into classes based on buying power. Those who are wealthy will not associate with those who are poor. As you reach adulthood, it will become more pronounced. People go on to define themselves by their material possessions. The man with several large houses, a fleet of cars, a yacht, a private jet, and a staff of servants are seen as being more worthwhile than the poor family who can barely afford a single-room apartment.

Once upon a time, this was important for human survival. The wealthy villager had the responsibility of caring for the entire tribe, and helped to maintain the social order that was necessary to allow everyone to work together. This is no longer the case, but we still possess the instincts that have been bred into us after millenia of operating in this manner.

We are instinctively drawn to those who have more power, and money equals power. It doesn't make sense; the clerk at a store gets paid the same no matter whether he's serving Donald Trump or Joe the Plumber, but he's more likely to be polite to Donald than to Joe. He gets nothing out of his extra effort, yet he does it anyway.

What this means is that you will have to make a choice. As you grow to adulthood, you will need to select a career. Some people choose a career that they enjoy. Others pursue employment that they know they can do, even if they don't like it or won't make a lot of money. Still others seek work that will make them a lot of money, even if it's not something they enjoy doing.

You have to choose carefully. Do you want to do something you'll enjoy, or something that pays well? The two seldom overlap. It is possible to do both; I once wanted to be a surgeon, but as I grew older, I realised that it would be very difficult to continue loving that job because so many others do it solely for the money. They drained my desire to help people, and caused me to change my career plans.

But there is a third option. Some people choose to forgo money entirely, and attempt to live alternative lifestyles. If this is what you want to do, I will of course support your decision, but you have to realise that it is not easy. We live in a world that is so overwhelmingly based on the flow of money that trying to do without it means that you will have to forgo many of the luxuries that are taken for granted by modern society: electricity, heated water, easy-to-prepare foods, and many other things.

It's not fair, and it's not right, but that's the way it is. Better that you learn this now, and be able to deal with it when you become an adult, than find out the hard way when it's too late, like I did.

On interactions with males

Dear Michelle,

As you get older (and especially as you navigate the treacherous waters of adolescence), you will find yourself the subject of a great many males who want nothing more than to have sex with you. Ultimately, this is your choice to make, and I will always love you, no matter which choice you make. I would like to help you make the best choice you can, and I will always be here to offer you advice and help you decide which is the best option for you. But right now, I want to make sure you understand something very important about the way that men and women interact.

Firstly, you must understand that men and women are different, no matter what the radical extremists would have you believe. Because men produce millions of sperm and are not physically attached to their offspring, those who have the most surviving children are those who impregnate the most women. Women, however, produce a small number of available eggs, and are burdened with nine months of pregnancy and a lifetime of care for their offspring in the event that they do conceive a child. Thus, the women who have the most surviving children are the ones that can find a partner who will remain with them and provide support for the child-raising process.

Because of this, men are hard-wired to want sex, lots of sex, and only sex. Women, on the other hand, are hard-wired to want emotional commitment. So whenever you are frustrated with your boyfriend/spouse/romantic partner, just remember that, and you'll understand why.

Secondly, however, you must also remember that not all men are like that. Just as there are women who crave sex without emotional involvement, so too are there men who crave love and commitment. So it's important, when you meet a man, not to automatically assume that he's only interested in sleeping with you. It's good to be aware that he's probably only interested in sleeping with you, but it's not fair to him (or to you) to dismiss him entirely for that reason. Give him a chance, get to know him, find out for sure if he wants nothing else first. Be aware that it's a possibility, but don't discount the potential mates because of the majority of jerks.

That's my advice for you today. Until next time, I bid you farewell. 

First Letter

Dear Michelle,

Before I start giving you advice and describing what I think is important for you to know, perhaps it is important to know who I am.

At the time that I write this, I am 35 years old. Once upon a time, I wanted children more than anything. That changed after I got married, for a plethora of reasons. I may describe them to you later, but they're not important right now. If I had ever had a child, I would have preferred a daughter. I realise this makes me unusual compared to most males, but the thought of raising a son fills me with dread. Raising a teenage daughter, though, intrigues me.

If I'd ever actually had a daughter, I'd have named you Michelle. I love that name. I think it is far too often relegated to the realm of middle names, and it deserves so much better. But I never have had children, and I never will, so I write these letters instead to you, the daughter I never had.

Who am I? I am a teacher. I'm not currently working as a teacher, but I am a teacher nonetheless. I am a gamer. I am an introvert. I am a cynic who prefers to think of himself as a realist. I am a misnathrope. I am a firm believer in the power of logic, and the power of belief, and I believe it is possible to believe in those things without them conflicting. I believe that humans have great potential, but I believe that humans seldom acheive their potential.

Why am I writing these letters?

I feel that I have some important and worthwhile things to say. Some of these, I think, would be most useful for a teenage daughter. I remember what it was like to be a teenager, and I have worked closely with teenagers ever since I was a young adult. As a teacher working with secondary students, I had to learn to understand the way that teens work, and I got lots of practise and firsthand observation. I think I would be good at helping a daughter to navigate the perilous waters of adolesence.

Some of the things I have to say, though, would be beneficial to most anyone. They are observations on the world in general, and might be helpful (or at least interesting) to anybody who reads it.

So what follows is my thoughts and observations. My letters to you, Michelle, the daughter I never had.