Saturday, August 5, 2017

Three Purposes of Anger

To the enraged,

In today's society, showing displays of anger is frowned upon. However, there are times when it is appropriate and effective to be angry, but you need to control it rather than let it control you. In order to get it under control, it is helpful to know what the three purposes of it are and how do deal with them.

The first purpose is to show what is important to you. This can be tricky because you might not realize what is important until you get angry and even then you still have to play detective. For example, my wife told me we got a mosquito in the house and I got very upset. It was not so much that the mosquito was in the house that upset me but rather the fear of having to wake up on the middle of the night to find it after it bit me awake. If the mosquito was killed beforehand, then I wouldn't mind.

In order to control this and make our anger more effective is to identify what is most important and explain it. For example, when my child cries with no way of calming him down, I would get angry for second, but then identify that he is more important. This love for him helps make it so that I'm in control. Limiting the number of things that you consider important will also make your few occasions more effective. Otherwise everyone will think there is no satisfying you and they will begin to ignore you.

The second purpose is to demand a change. I believe the ultimate goal of giving negative feedback is to encourage some sort of change. A good customer service sees what upsets it's customers and tries to avoid that in the future. However, since there are so many improvements to make, seeing the obvious signs of anger can help promote which improvements are done faster.

The help for dealing with this is to develop a sense of acceptance. While things can be improved, there is nothing that can be done about the past. We might do things to help recompense, but we should avoid aiming for compensation as that encourages selfishness. If we accept that the offending parties did not mean to offend us and that they tried their best to help us, then we can suggest improvements in a calmer manner which can lead to a productive conversation.

Another help here is humility. The smaller we see ourselves, the less offended we feel. We can still suggest improvements, especially if it will help others, but at least then we can show we are not acting out of selfishness.

The third purpose is to simply to be an outlet of emotion. We are emotional people and sometimes we need to vent our frustration in order to feel better. This is a tricky thing to control as the more you vent, the less effective it becomes, both for you and those around you. This is why the intensity of expletives grow the more you use them. However, someone that never uses expletives can be even more effective than those who do. This is because expletives give a shock and offensive structure, making the recipient upset and angry with you, but those who are angry in a controlled manner might be empathized with.

Even though this last purpose is the first one seen, it is based upon the other two. If we can handle the other purposes, then this one becomes weaker. I cannot say that it will be eliminated because this is the reaction caused by your brain's emotional center, which happens before you can be rational. If you have the rush of adrenaline, it might be 20 minutes before you can be rational again.

While people claim various methods for dealing with this such as stress balls or hitting something, you probably notice that these lose their effectiveness after a while. When we act on our emotions, it becomes harder to control them. This is especially dangerous when your output is to hit something as that will likely turn to hitting someone. Again, your emotional center acts before your rational. You cannot guarantee you won't do something unless you place a hard limit on everything that would build up to it. One thing I would suggest instead is meditation though it certainly is difficult at first. Therefore, you need to practice meditation before you get angry so that you won't become even more frustrated.

One thing I can suggest in the meantime until you can practice meditation is to convert your frustration into sadness. This will at least prevent you from harming anyone. This is not perfect as it can lead to depression if you are not careful and therefore I suggest meditation and everything else I've mentioned. Once you obtain that state, you will find that your anger is more controlled and far more effective.

In summary, if you want to control your anger, you have to identify the three purposes; conveying importance, demanding change, and output of frustration. The keys to dealing with this are the same for being patient; love, humility, and acceptance. Now that you know this, I hope you can better use your anger for progress and not for destruction.

With love,
N. D. Moharo

Friday, July 21, 2017

Concerning the Universal Basic Income (and Change in scheduling)

Hi All,
    I'm sorry this is starting to be a habit, but perhaps I should make it official. Instead of trying to get one post every two weeks, I'm going to do one every three or possibly four weeks. If I can make the bi-weekly schedule then I'll do that, but family duties, work, and so on make that difficult even when I have a topic. For instance, last week I intended to share more thoughts about economy, but I couldn't get my thoughts organized in a presentable manner. I have a few points, but the flow was not there yet so I cannot share it. However, here is a piece I wrote today on a related topic utilizing some of those points. I hope you find this enlightening.

N.D. Moharo


Concerning the Universal Basic Income

Dear Society.
I read a Vox article recently encouraging the Universal Basic Income (UBI) where everyone receives a basic sum of money to help with their lives. I found it interesting as I had not given much though to the topic, but I also thought it was ignoring a few realities. The article's focus was on two arguments against the UBI: Work Critique and Cost Critique. Here is how they described the two in the article:
  1. (Work critique) Giving people cash will cause them to work less, hurt the economy, and deprive them of the meaning that work provides in life.
  2. (Cost critique) Providing an income floor set at a reasonable level for everyone is unaffordable.
For the work critique, it claimed that it wouldn't really make people work less. Depending on the amount of money given, I would agree. Even if it did reduce the "labor force", it would potentially be for the better. For example, if you give enough to help make it so someone doesn't have to work 4 part time jobs in order to survive, but instead only need 2 jobs, that gift of time can provide the golden opportunity to find a better job. At the same time, since 1 person isn't taking 4 jobs anymore, that opens up jobs for more people, actually increasing the labor force by allowing more people to work. These are the people that would be helped, at least temporarily.

For the Cost Critique, it shared a point that that giving 300 million people $10,000 a year would cost the country $3 trillion a year. For some reason, the article believes we can afford that and believe that it will wipe out poverty entirely. That is incredibly idealistic but also unreasonable because it doesn't actually address why poverty exists in the first place and how people would respond. For the few cases where it would seemingly help at first, it would be a complete waste and very destructive for everyone else.

What happens when you give a homeless man $100K? People actually tried this and you can get the short form from Today I Found Out. The very short form is that the guy ended up back on the streets despite the benefactors being generous, providing means of turning his life around, and family trying to help him get a job but he refused all of their efforts. The points made are that there are people who do not want to work or people with poor money skills and therefore they would be in poverty despite how much money you give them.
Also consider how to keep track of who gets the money and if they actually did. People die every year, but a family might not report it to the government so they can get a few extra $10K a year. And what about the illegal immigrants? Will they get money too? If they do, then we'll get more illegal immigrants and they'll try to get the money too. If they don't, well then there will still be some people on the streets and poverty has not been eliminated. 

Then there is the often forgotten consequence of everyone having more money; inflation. That's what happens every time there is a surge in wealth for a country. Gold loses it's value when there is so much of it. The only reason why diamonds are still "expensive" is because they are artificially limiting supply. Have you ever wondered why making a product overseas and then shipping it to the US and paying the tariffs is cheaper than making the product domestically? Why does such a low amount of money make it so a person can have an education for a week/month when it costs more than that just for a sandwich down the street?  I've heard stories about how foreigners are told not to shop when visiting family in third world countries because the prices skyrocket when they do so, but even those prices foreigners will find as a "good deal."

The market tends to regulate itself, but when money suddenly appears, greed acts even harder to get it all. If people suddenly have more money, then they think they can afford higher prices and end up doing so. Since there is no regulation on prices, as evidenced by how high the markups can get especially for medicine, and that's one reason why the U.S. is not ready for universal healthcare. Even college education has similarly increased dramatically with data from collegeboard.org showing that college costs 3X as much in 2016 than it did in 1976 even after adjusting for inflation. Also, more money you have, the more taxes you have to pay. The result is that the initial $10K will work for an instant, but then there will be greater debt and it'll take years for the economy to stabilize even to the point we are at today and be probably worse off.

How will you fund such an expensive program?  Increasing taxes as suggested by the Vox author is not an answer because that lowers the value of the money given. And if you exempt the amount given, then you don't collect as much in taxes to pay for it. Sure, it could possibly substitute for medicare and other social security programs, but those people would likely end up getting less money than before when it's already not enough. As a result, we would be harming more people than helping. Accumulating debt would not work either as that also causes inflation and there is no guarantee that future generations can pay it off. Considering that more families have both spouses working in order to provide for less people than a just father did a few decades ago and I think we can agree we are not wealthier than before.

Lastly, what affect would such a stipend have on our paychecks? Would employers claim they no longer need to give us raises or bonuses? Would they instead try to make paycuts using the stipend as an excuse? This is a dangerous possibility that needs to be considered and regulated before a UBI is put into place.

While I partially agreed about the vox article's opinion on the work critique argument, the cost and realities around the Universal Basic Income show that we have more to lose and very few have anything to gain. Instead of trying to figure out how to give everyone more money, we should instead examine what are the causes of poverty and try to control that. If we do, then we can finally make true progress.

With love,
N. D. Moharo

Saturday, July 1, 2017

The Minimum Wage Conundrum

To Society,

Apparently Seattle is starting to feel the effects of the minimum wage increase and it is not optimistic. While some companies beforehand actually paid well more than the minimum wage, forcing all companies to do so have many problems, resulting in no way everyone could win and the one to lose the most was the minimum wage worker.

When you increase the wages of a large workforce, where does the extra money come from? There are three options.
1) from the company 
2) from the consumer
3) from the worker


When trying to run a business, you need to try to make a profit. With the minimum wage increase, a business model I had became no longer viable because not enough money would come in to support both the costs of operation and the workforce.  In today's economy, startups have enough trouble as it is. Increasing the cost when profit is not yet guaranteed makes it even harder to start a business. As a result, less jobs are created. 

Now I will admit that if a company is performing very well, then the employees should reap some of the benefits, but by forcing to raise the minimum wage for even struggling companies, there is more to be lost than gained.

As for the consumer paying for the increase in wages, the common method is to raise prices. This does not help anyone, especially in the long run. One, when prices go up, consumers will turn to other products or companies. I did this especially when it came to Subway long before I stopped going there altogether. I would often go regularly and order the $5 footlong because that's what Subway's marketing convinced me the sandwich was worth. So when the prices went up, I no longer went there. Similarly, when I visited Japan and found the 6-inch subs to be more than $5, I refused to order anything. Companies know they can lose customers by raising prices and in a competitive industry, raising prices is not an easy option.

Also consider that if the prices for basic items go up in order to handle the increased wages, that means the increased wages don't mean so much anymore and those who previously made a decent wage no longer do. No one wins here.

Lastly, the money can come from the workforce and we've seen this happen before not too long ago. Employees get laid off, benefits are removed, or hours are cut. The result is that everyone suffers due to overworking, having to pay for benefits, or not working enough to make any money. Unfortunately, when it comes to running a business, this is the easiest option to pull off because it can have the least negative impact.

Are there other problems caused by the increase in minimum wages? Yes. The increase in prices means businesses have less customers, reducing the need for workers or closing the business altogether. Less jobs for unskilled workers makes it difficult to gain work experience. More competition for jobs makes it harder to save money for college. The increase in wages mean that even if you made more, then you have to pay more in taxes. Also, with higher prices, then we get inflation, meaning everyone is effectively making less money.

So what can we do? Not raise the minimum wages so dramatically but instead look at the real economic problems. Since raising the minimum wage actually creates more problems without solving any, we need to shift our attention. However, I do not have time today to address them for you, but I do intend to write again on the subject. Until then,

With love,
N. D. Moharo

Friday, June 16, 2017

The small but major source of joy

My Dear child,
     While the world may make you think you cannot be happy without finding that "one special person" in your life to have romance with, that is certainly not the case. While I do agree that love is certainly the key to happiness, romance is not the case. Yes, romance can be great, but certain moments of suffering trump it; those moments were when I cherished you in my arms.
     The joy of holding you, hugging you, lifting you to see the world and that smile on your face brought me far more joy than when I dated your mother, and I enjoyed that very much. Yet even when you cried, hugging you to try and help you feel better would still give my heart joy. My heart would certainly be broken if you were no longer around.
     I mentioned before that you are why I admire your mother so much more than before. Seeing the love she gives to you inspires me to be more loving, and as a result, feel more joy, despite when you could do nothing for me in return. Whether you were laughing or crying, holding you was precious. I would be at work and try to leave as soon as possible so that I may see your excitement and embrace you once more.
     To have this joy, you do not need romance or even children. Helping others is something we can do all of the time, especially the handicapped such as your uncle. Despite being older than your father, your uncle's situation makes him like a baby both mentality and functionally, yet we love him so dearly. Love, even in small bursts, brings about great joy. I hope that you will remember that.

With Love,
N. D. Moharo

Friday, May 26, 2017

Being Respectful of Religions

To society,
    One of the most obvious proofs that political correctness does not care about respect is the lack of respect shown towards group of peoples, especially concerning religion. While religion has a bad reputation to many people, there is proper logic. The proper definition of religion involves a person rendering what is due to his god(s). If you believe there is a god who is the master of the universe, shouldn't that god be the most important thing to you? Should that god be what you respect the most? Therefore it is proper behavior for people to do what they think is the best way to serve their god. That is the basis for freedom of religion.
    We know this is the proper understanding of religion because it is common to refer to extreme devotion towards things such as money, alcohol, or sex as "someone's religion." How do we know? It's because when those things are threatened, they become very angry and sometimes violent. The fact that the prospect of money has caused many wars and injustices to humanity is amazing.
     Now I doubt one letter would convince you to stop society's hatred of religion. However, I would at least ask you to be respectful of the things religion values, one of those being certain names. For Muslims, the word "Allah" is sacred and should not be disrespected with casual and purposeless use. The same goes for "God" or "Jesus" for Christians and "YHWH" (which you're apparently not even supposed to pronounce) for Jews. If you are willing to forego some common words in order to not "offend" someone, then you can certainly refrain from being disrespectful of names for something large groups of people consider most important and inspiring. Let us be respectful of everyone.

N. D. Moharo

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Quick Conversion for Weather

Yesterday, I threw out my back. So in order to rest, this time I'll be sharing a simple thing rather than a full essay.

Growing up in the U.S. my sense of temperature was naturally in Fahrenheit, which doesn't help when travelling to other countries. There is the mathematical way to pretty accurately convert between the two, but I've found it isn't quick for simple math. However, I've figured out how to switch from Celsius to Fahrenheit quickly when discussing weather. Start from 32 and add 18 degrees Fahrenheit for each 10 degrees Celsius. This allow you to quickly estimate the temperature by just using addition rather than division and multiplication. Since good baseline temperatures for Celsius are 0 (32), 10 (50), 20 (68), 30 (86), and 35 (95), it makes it simple to quickly figure it out.

To quickly estimate the reverse, I'd say subtract 32 and then divide by 2 (though this gets less accurate pretty quickly so don't use it for even boiling water or you'll be off by 10 degrees Celsius, which is a big deal)

Since the weather is actually a common topic to talk about, when you chat with a non-American, I hope these tactics help you out.

N. D. Moharo

Friday, April 28, 2017

Overwatch

My dear child,
     I can remember holding you as a baby and watching you squirm around in my arms, trying to see the world. However, I would hold you even tighter. At first, you may have thought that I should let you do whatever, but for your safety, to prevent you from falling 4 feet head-first to the ground, I held you firmly. I did this because of my love for you.
     Seeing that made me consider how we might try to break free of our moral constraints, thinking that it impedes our "freedom". However, that is not the case, but rather the opposite. If we even start to go down the wrong path, our freedom can be lost. Consider any addiction is that once you taste it, just once, you will always suffer from it. Just like if I allowed you to fall, you could have died or at permanently injure yourself.
     I do admit that at some point, I must allow you to take up your own responsibility. You can say that is when you are "Free." Freedom doesn't mean doing whatever you want, but being responsible for whatever you do. If someone is forced to do something, he isn't responsible for the action.
    Now responsibility is not an evil thing, but rather an aspect of justice. It identifies that if something goes wrong, who is the person who must answer for it and try to set it back in order. If people are not responsible, then our ability to grow will be hindered as our lives become overwhelmed with fear. Likewise, if we allow evil to thrive, then our freedom to become perfect is threatened. The point of freedom is to allow you to become perfect; to become the hero whose core is love for goodness and others. All evil actions, however, act against that goal, both for yourself and those around you by increasing selfishness. Therefore, if you wish to protect freedom, you must work to prevent people from being legally able to do wicked deeds. You could argue that this is an obligation, but I rather you look at this as an act of love for others, just as I look at my responsibility of protecting you as an act of love for you.

With Love,
N. D. Moharo

Friday, April 14, 2017

Update and leadership

Dear Readers,
     I was hoping last week that I would have my latest piece about the nature of anger ready, but I still need more time to address some questions I have. However, since I failed to meet my normal bi-weekly schedule. I figured I should at least update the blog with some message and insights.

Another piece I have drafted takes a look on the methods of leadership. However, I got tangled up by whether some things should be regarded as leadership and which are general categories. As a result, I haven't made much progress but I don't know when I will either. I will definitely have to revisit the topic, but here is a draft of the ideas and organization I currently have.

If you want to be a good leader, you need to know how to inspire people. Here are general traits or methods that can encourage action.
  • Authority/Expertise: Authority is often a synonym for leadership, but in this case, I speaking about the expertise that no one doubts you. It is the level of knowledge where people can say you "wrote the book on it"
  • Respect: Respect encourages us to do something for others. When leaders have our respect, they can also have our loyalty. This is one of the ways our heroes naturally inspire us. Another aspect of respect is what is called Filial Fear. This is the fear children have when they don't want to offend their parents. In TV shows, it generally takes the form of "I didn't want to make you sad." 
  • Admiration:  The second and more prominent attribute of heroes. When we admire someone, we want to act just like them. Therefore we naturally will want to follow them in what they do.
  • Reward: Common advice when training pets or raising children is to reward them for good actions. This is a valid method but it has it's limitations and consequences. It should be noted that this method can encourage entitlement which always will lead to resentment. You need to make sure to establish that actions may not receive a reward. Likewise, compromise can be a legitimate course of action when dealing with a difficult situation, but there are some times when compromise should not be an option.
  • Charisma: ideas are common, but the ones from people with energy survive the race. I often hear at work that good ideas come up, but they need someone to make it their project. The abundance of energy can inspire people to act, but it can also wear people out and they give up resistance. I certainly recommend the former over the latter, but even then you need to be careful. This is the method used when riling up a mob, which is perhaps one of the scariest aspects of society.
  • Obligation/Logic: Obligation is the most varied method in terms of tactics and effect. It tries to use logic to convince someone to do something. The tactics are as follows: Position, Pity, Promise, Guilt, and Fear of Punishment.
    • Position tries to use logic that you are a leader. However, unless the person can back the claim with another method or actual power, this is a very weak tactic. If the subjects don't believe you should be in power, they may possibly rebel.
    • Pity tries to utilize people's capacity for love saying that they are not human if they don't act.
    • Promise is similar to reward except that the reward is not provided by you but instead is the natural result of the action.
    • Guilt is similar to pity but instead approaches that someone will live in constant regret if they don't do as you say. 
    • Fear of Punishment is the opposite of reward and controversial, but can be a powerful motivator. There are certainly times when it is necessary, such as when someone does not understand the gravity of the situation despite how you explain it. My wife's shoulder had been bothering her for weeks so I kept telling her to make an appointment to get it checked but she kept forgetting. So I told her that I wouldn't buy her anymore avocados if she didn't make the appointment. Such a trivial threat of punishment, but it got her to do it. She finally made the appointment and found that if she continued to do nothing, she wouldn't be able to raise her arms.
That is all I have for now. Hopefully I can come up with something more within the next two weeks.

N. D. Moharo

Friday, March 24, 2017

The Glory of Habits

My Growing Child,
    If you researched the definition of Justice I provided before in my explanation about the relation between Justice and Fairness, you may have come across Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologicae. In there, he talks about Justice being a habit. Habits today tend to have a negative connotation due to the prevalence of addictions, but there are good habits too called virtues.
    Virtues are good habits of actions we perform as if they are part of our nature. In fact, habits are so intrinsic that we use them to describe and define a person. We say things like, "He's a just man," or "she's a loving mother." Habits are hard to change, but in this case, that is good.
    One objection I might expect from you stems from the ideal of Free Will. Since habits make it difficult to choose, wouldn't all habits be evil? There are two ways to address this. One way is to argue that the purpose of free will and life is to establish these habits. However, that would be a long debate. The second opinion is that habits do not eliminate choice. For example, I may be generous, but I can still decide the amount to give or refrain completely. There are various levels of virtue in which you can choose to grow or not. Likewise, you can choose to resist your habit or accept it.
    Now that you know this, I ask you how you would like to be known. Will people describe you with heroic virtues or selfish vices? The choice is up to you.
With Love,
N. D. Moharo


P. S. You can find the definition of justice as given by Thomas Aquinas at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3058.htm in his answer to Article 1. There, he says "justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by a constant and perpetual will"

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Concerning Breastfeeding Rights



I recently was examining an airline's section on child traveling when I noticed a line that stated, "we support a woman's right to breastfeed her child." This reminded me that there is controversy surrounding this issue. My friend recently had to fight with her family who were trying to physically block her from doing so. I stopped to wonder if women should have a right to breastfeed. My first instinct was no, but then I figured "yes, but that we are looking at it wrong."

I think putting Breastfeeding as a woman's right takes away from the real issue; shouldn't it be the baby's right to be breastfed. If you recall, I argue that a right is supposed to help us move towards our perfection. Breast milk is superior to baby formula. Not only does it contain the essential nutrients, but it provides the enzymes the body needs and antibodies to strengthen the baby's immune system. Baby formula still can't replicate everything to the point that it's a selling point when they finally get an ingredient. In addition, bottlefeeding had been studied to show an increase in obesity. Consider also that the bonding time between mother and child is of great importance. If the baby can get his mother's breast milk, then it is our duty as society to let him in peace.

Now what about the mother? I at first considered it more of it responsibility than right, but I can now see that it is her right. Breastfeeding has some conveniences such as not having to prepare a bottle or buy anything extra beyond pads. It also helps with the recovery from child birth. If you want to space out your children, it helps as well though with various success. It can prevent breast cancer, feel good, burn calories, and diapers are not foul smelling. However, is the bonding I mentioned earlier that convinces me that it is a right.

If there is only action that can increase your ability to love, bonding is a high contender. I saw this occur in my wife and my own love for her grew as well. Is there anything more beautiful than to see the love between a mother and her child?

On the other hand, women also have a right to choose to refrain from breastfeeding. This is because breastfeeding is also very intensive and draining. It takes a lot of effort and can be almost impossible for the mother who has to work full time. However, This also means that if a mother decides to breastfeed, we should give full support.

If we fight breastfeeding, then we naturally condemn breasts to be sexual objects. This is not their purpose nor should it be. Women are people who by nature is capable of great love. Babies are people with rights as well and both should be loved and respected by society.

N. D. Moharo

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Let's Fight for Women's Rights!

To Society,
    There has been a war on women for far too long. Women are our mothers and sisters and they deserve respect. They are not objects for another's pleasure, but human beings. They are precious and beautiful. They are worth fighting for to protect.
    What should we be fighting? Anything which takes away from their dignity as human beings. We should fight against corporate greed which targets their insecurities. We should fight against abuse of the innocents and against abuse entirely. We should fight against the political ideas that try to keep them enslaved. We should fight against that which takes away their innocence and virtue.
    I was saw a tweet about telling women to a stop being polite. This saddened me deeply. When women in general stop being polite, who will be left to teach others how to be respectful? No, society depends on women being polite and teaching men to be the same. It is common knowledge that violence only brings about more violence. Unless someone stops the chain, suffering will only spread. Women are good at this because they have historically had the reputation of loving the most. And the people who love the most are the greatest people, not those with power.

    The great everyday heroes are mothers. After all, how many times in our childhood have we told our moms that we "hated" them, a woman who has sacrificed so much out of love? But they endure it and still love us. I know I don't want to hurt my wife, but it will inadvertently happen, because we are human and hurt even when we intend to help. If it wasn't for that quality of enduring love in women, society would be lost. If a woman only cries and then forgives, she is truly the strong one.
    A woman's heart is precious and should be treasured. Therefore we must fight anything that threatens to demeans them. I am opposed to the many TV shows tell boys that they need to sleep with many women to be a man. That is not the case at all, especially since that is a huge disrespect to the great woman's heart. Women are people, not sex toys. A real man certainly loves many women, meaning that he cares about them and their rights, not having sex. Sex is a very precious thing, something that should be treasured with one person only. My wife told me that she knew I loved her because I was adamant about waiting until marriage before having sex. A man can show that he is really able to love, but saving everything for one woman and show that she is precious. 
    I am similarly opposed to shows and movies that convince girls that they need sex to feel loved. There are five love languages and sex alone just falls under one of them. What we should do instead is teach boys and girls these love languages and how to interpret which is needed. No one should ever feel like they are not loved because they don't have sex. In fact, there are lots of testimonies of Natural Family Planning saving marriages because it forces couples to remember that loving does not require sex.

    Likewise, why should a woman feel like she needs makeup if she is a member of the fairer sex? If we convince a woman that she's only beautiful when she is not showing her true face, how can that be good for her? It is totally unnecessary especially when I look at my wife and admire her beautiful face without makeup. I have always thought that she looked good without makeup, but it took her years to be comfortable without it around me. It's the same with glasses. Some women look really nice with glasses, but the typical beauty makeover movie says no.
    Speaking of beauty, today's society appears to have confused sexiness with beauty. We appreciate art without desiring to have sex with, why should women be any different? However, the current trends for fashion are to try and make women as sexy as possible. Why is it that women should show skin and wear makeup to be considered beautiful when men do the opposite? Shouldn't we instead encourage modest dress? I have yet to meet a man who told me that he respected immodest women more than the modestly dressed.
http://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/g1931/golden-globes-best-dressed-2014/?slide=4 
    On another front, Women need to be able to earn a just wage. Not every woman is meant to be married. I know plenty of single women, especially from my father's generation, who never married but are perfectly content. Their joy still comes from being apart of their families, or even other families as one of my neighbors is with mine. I see them as perfectly loving in giving their time and energies helping others and that is just great. However, these women therefore need to be able to earn a living wage. Society should not assume that women are all going to get married and be provided for, especially when it's becoming increasingly difficult for one person to provide for a family. If we are in a society where it is common for both parents to work, then that means it is not acceptable for women to be earning less for the same work, especially single mothers.
    We are in an unfortunate society where many pregnant women are single. These women need to earn a living wage, but the current situation makes it difficult to also raise her children and work. When maternity leave is so short, it's makes having children feel impossible. In cases like this, I feel like the U.S. should adopt standards like Japan where mothers can get long maternity leaves, even if it means that they receive only 2/3 of their salary paid for by health insurance. I heard that one company allowed their employees to take up to two years for maternity leave.
    One issue I have had with the Pro-life movement is it's nearsightedness. It wants to dismantle Planned Parenthood because of it's heavy push for abortion, but they haven't pushed a good alternative to replace everything else associated with it. I definitely agree that if a woman cannot kill a two-year old because of economic hardship, mental disabilities, or because of a traumatic event, they should not be allowed to kill an unborn child whom I see as a human being as well. However, the pro-life movement only seems concerned with ending legalized abortion, not addressing the issues which drive some to have abortion whether safe or not. We need to understand, because through that, we show we care about both the mother and child.
    I see no reason why we should be forcing poor women to feel like they need to kill their children. Don't women have a right to have their children? Can we truly say that we are progressive if we make people feel like they cannot have as many children as those who went through the Great Depression? We should be helping them with their situation. We need support shelters to save women from abuse, better pay and environments for working mothers, and governments, insurance, and businesses that put people back at the center and not money.
 
 
With Love,
N. D. Moharo


P. S. I found the following two videos interesting. I found it interesting to watch Cameron Russel go from a short black dress with an open back (fairly sexy) to a dress and sweatshirt (beautiful). She also talks about the difference between the photos in the magazines vs real life
The second, because these are people who have received comments about the confusion between beauty and sexiness and give an idea about why that may be. However, take note that they are speaking to a very specific audience




Thursday, January 26, 2017

Theory: Why Men like Big Breasts

It is an assumption that men in general like women with big breasts. As a member of the male gender, I won't argue with the claim. However, I have wondered why breasts in a woman can arouse men. I don't know the answer, but I do have some theories.

One idea is the natural instinct of bigger breasts meaning more milk. While breast size is more about fat than milk production, I do think there is some credibility due to the fact that breasts can get bigger when breastfeeding. My wife has the stretch marks to prove it.

Another theory is impression. I noticed my son had his eyes open while breastfeeding. As such, the breasts would appear big to have as a baby and the breasts were bigger when he was breastfeeding. Hence, the perception of breasts being big when we were small and drinking the milk could influence our thoughts.

However, many children don't breastfeed. Why would they like big breasts? Possibly in combination with the previous point, they have seen big breasts often and this influenced their perception of beauty. If you remember my letter on beauty, we as children as easily impressionable and we still are as adults.

Another possibility is that breasts are smooth, soft, and springy. Men tend to like smooth and soft skin. Women's breasts are one area that naturally does not have hair. They also are soft, making like a nice pillow. As such, they appear to be nice to touch. In fact, some women liked having their breasts touched, even to the point that they get a high while breastfeeding. To be fair, it appears that some women like to touch breasts as well based off what I heard from female classmates.

There is also the bouncing element. Perhaps rooted in that we like bouncy things as children (the fastest way I found to calm an infant and the pure joy of a bounce house), breasts are something that we have the impression of being able to bounce. This is such a deal that it's a controversial element of video games where it's taken to unrealistic proportions. Of course, this adds to the focus element as extra attention is spent on big breasts.

Perhaps the biggest reason though for big breasts is as a psychological shortcut to identifying women. Just as men currently like skirts as they indicate a woman in modern society, so too breasts. The bigger the breasts, the more likely it's a woman and therefore sexually compatible. While fat men can have big chests as well, they are the exception and are shaped differently as well, still allowing for the discrimination.

Now, this is not to mean that big breasts are important for all men. Some men like small chests while others focus on other parts of the body. I personally focus on the face and hair first. The face contains the alluring eyes and stunning smile, and hair that complements the face is simply gorgeous. 

In conclusion, I believe there are a variety of reasons for the fascination of big breasts among men. It could be any combination of the above plus some that I am likely missing. Perhaps it makes sense that there may not be a single reason as people are different. However, it is important to realize that it's only one aspect of a woman's beauty and not necessarily the most important.

N. D. Moharo

Note: There's an article looking at the absurd breasts physics of video games. They give a Not Safe for Work warning so I figured I should do the same before linking to it. If you want to read the article, you can find it at http://kotaku.com/how-video-game-breasts-are-made-and-why-they-can-go-so-1687753475  

Sunday, January 15, 2017

The Gender Neutral Pronoun we've been using for ages

To the Politically Correct,
    Language is a initially a complicated matter, but as society creates demands for change, it becomes even more so. This becomes a big problem as it becomes harder even for natives to master the language, which in turn creates even more complications. This also makes it very difficult for foreigners to learn the language and may even result in the death of a language. However, perhaps the saddest result is that newer generations will not be able to understand us or our ancestors rich literature.
    It is difficult to satisfy both requirements of simplicity and change, but if the changes were to make the language simpler, then perhaps that is the best route.
    A recent movement that makes things complicated is the idea of gender neutral pronouns. English, like every language I have studied, has historically used the male to represent both genders. However, a lot of women are annoyed that they may be excluded or an after thought due to ambiguity.
    There have been attempts to introduce a gender neutral word, but to find a good word and convince people to use it is too troublesome. I recall an article from a long time ago where a country tried "hen" which has a lot of problems. Why call someone a bird that is also female? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Add a bonus fact that the same word in Japanese means "strange/perverted" and we have irony. Another method was to add female words to clarify, but to add "or she" to every instance of he is tedious. Next attempt is to use "they" even when it's singular. That just adds another complication and is grammatically incorrect.

   So my proposed solution is as follows: use "It". The issue for this was that "It" is for objects, not people. Except that this is not entirely true. We have had the complication of using "It" as a gender neutral pronoun for ages. Here are some examples:

Who is it?
It is I
It's a girl!

Since we already use it for when we don't know the gender and sometimes even when we do know the gender, let's just expand its role. That's simpler and removes complications.

N. D. Moharo