Confederates, Patriots, and Irony

This is my first YouTube video, check it out and watch for more videos from me. Share it if you agree, and tell me your thoughts.

Copyright 2015, by Joshua Michail.

The Principle Directives

If you agree with these ideas, please share with your friends. What are your thoughts?

Separate from morality and ethics, if one generally applies these principles in one's life it would help one to develop and maintain good character.

From the chapter Principle Directives in my book -- To Make a Better World: The handbook for good secular living in the modern era.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1512115894

On the Beauty of Sex.

Image source unknown.

Why do we have such a problem with “slut” shaming? Why are women expected to wait for someone to approach them about sex? Why do all too many women expect a knight in shining armor to rescue them from the ivory tower? Why do we feel guilty for our sexual urges? There are many various attitudes toward the subject of sex. Unfortunately, the more common ones are detrimental to individual health and happiness. Of those, many are even a handicap to society, and more importantly to the individual. As I had written in my previous essay on this subject – Sex; Attitude and Greatness, back in 2012, a very large part of sex boils down to attitudes. The reality is that sex is mostly mental, and only partly physical. Of course, that's not to ignore, exactly, the physical part of it, without which sex wouldn't be possible. But, even touching, kissing, etcetera are stimulation of nerve endings, which send signals up the nervous system to the brain, where the action is interpreted and understood. In that way, even the physical is largely mental. My point here, however, is about how we think of sex. We all have some expectations, some preferences and desires, we even have beliefs outside of sex that influence how we think of sex. More importantly, these attitudes and beliefs all affect our enjoyment of sex.

Some people might disagree with me about what I'm about to say, mostly the religious, I'm sure. If there's anything that is universally true about sex it's this – sex is natural and one of the most beautiful experiences of life. In fact, we could say life is ultimately all about sex, after all, most organisms struggle to survive long enough to reproduce. It's almost as if that is it the point of life. Worse still, for most organisms this struggle is paramount and not enjoyed, rather it's only the fulfillment of an undeniable instinct. Sex is ultimately an endless fight for survival. It is a fight, first for the organism, to obtain a mating partner. This often leads to fights between two or more competing animals, like rams locking horns to determine a winner. Those rams are not just trying to win the battle, they're trying to win the mating partner. This is part of the process of evolution. Nearly everyone has heard of – and most people understand – natural selection, the process in which as creatures evolve the traits that don't hinder an animal's survival can be passed on to the next generation if it reproduces. But, the male peacock's elaborate and beautiful tail patterns, just like the ram's horns and ability to win the fight with other rams, is sexual selection. In the process of sexual selection the evolution is driven by development of traits that make an animal more attractive to potential mating partners. The male peacock's tail feather patterns serve no function to help it survive, but they do help it obtain female peacocks to have sex with, and thus produce young peacocks with his genetics. The ram's horns are not particularly useful for his daily survival either, he doesn't use them to get food, and most likely doesn't use those horns to defend against predators. The ram's horns more-or-less only help it to win the fight for dominance for the sole purpose of mating. Just a little aside – sexual selection and natural selection are not mutually exclusive forces in the process of evolution. I thought I'd add that point in case anyone did not already know, we all know there are too many misconceptions out there.

Images of ancient fertility goddesses, sources unknown.

But don't think that evolution, or nature, is sexist because females often also develop traits that help them obtain mates. Nature often favors in the females greater ability to produce offspring or to provide for them. So, while it may not seem as obvious when we look at the various species, sexual selection does happen in females too. If a female can produce numerous offspring the species is more likely to survive. If the female can be more attached to her young, the species has a better chance at being continued because the young have a better chance at achieving sexual maturity thanks to mother's help is surviving to adulthood. This means that female forms often have been selected by males for what seems to be a greater ability to raise young to maturity or produce more young. In human females, for example, broader hips are instinctively perceived as a desirable trait. People have even demonstrated an intuition regarding a woman's hip and sexual selection when they say: “That woman has child-bearing hips!” Likewise, the breasts of human women has evolved do to sexual selective pressures, since the roundness of the buttocks has become less obvious and constantly displayed when we began walking upright, the breasts began becoming bigger and rounder and more noticeable. While the butt is visible from behind, it's not visible from the front – where it happens that the breasts are to be found. When males have a choice in mates, a female with the traits that seem most desirable is most likely to get a mate. While sexual selection is usually geared toward greater strength and ability to survive in males, in females it's usually geared toward greater ability to reproduce and care for the young. Either way, all species select for the best chances that the species will long endure.

The process of evolution has long been at work in humans, as well. And sexual selection has also been a very potent influence on humanity, even to this day. One example is the average size of the human penis. Over a very long time, millions of years in the transitional species from which humans evolved, and in humans for around one hundred fifty thousand years, females have chosen to mate with males who had more desirable penises. So, straight ladies, whatever your thought about human penises you can thank, or blame, your ancient women ancestors. But, males have also influenced the evolution of the female human body. Broader hips have long psychologically suggested a greater ability to birth children. Broad hips have long been seen by many ancient men as a sign of fertility. It's true that breasts on women evolved in part because the round rump, which is seen in many mammalian species as a sort of sexual lure for males, are not as clearly visible when the female is seen from the front because we walk upright, but there's another possible not-mutually-exclusive reason. Larger breasts have long been seen by our ancient male ancestors as a sign of a woman's greater ability to nourish children. And, obviously, well-nourished children have a greater chance of growing up to be healthy adults who can pass the family genes on to another generation. Men have preferred these features over such a long time that the average woman's body is shaped as it is now. Psychology is a science that can help us better understand sex, and not just in understanding how humans have evolved due to sexual selection.

In all these things about us humans, psychology explores us and explains us. A few things follow here as an example. Women have long found a man's wealth to be key factor in determining his attractiveness, though most claim otherwise. It does make sense that historically there's been an evolutionary reason for this. A partner who can provide for the children will, naturally, mean children who will grow up healthier and be able to continue the species. However, things have changed. Women in many societies around the globe now work. And many of them are able to provide for their children without relying on a man's wallet. The man's wealth is becoming less valid as a factor for attraction. Likewise, starting with the harvesting of milk from cows and sheep and continuing with the invention of baby formula, a woman's breast size has been less valid as a factor for determining a woman's attractiveness. The fact is that we carry many legacies of our evolution in our current attitudes about sex. Much of these attitudes are have outlived their usefulness to the species. Of these outdated attitudes, some are harmless, but some are really quite detrimental.

Puritanical views have long perverted and permeated American views on sex, and to a lesser degree much of western views, as well. Pervasive in western culture is the Christian view that sex is not beautiful, but rather “sinful” and “dirty” – and much of this is true of Islam, as well. The idea that sex is some kind of disgusting thing that should only be done in the context of marriage is traditional among the most conservative of people. Why should this be? Because, the archaic view expressed by the early fathers of Christianity is that sex only exists to cause there to be more Christian souls to go out and dominate the globe. This is also true of most religions. Today religions continue to dominate our culture with their self-serving beliefs about controlling people, with unnecessary shame and guilt and fear. Now, one might think that promoting promiscuous sex would have been more effective at enlarging the ranks of the religious, but they had a reason against that. They wanted to make sure that the children were ensured to be members of the particular religion. If the children were born to unwed parents the children could be taken to any church or any religion. It served the religion's need to control its members and and to grow the religion's numbers, but there was another reason for sex being limited to marriage only. It actually mattered in terms of inheritance and family lines. Such restrictions were meant to ensure that a man's property would be inherited by his actual child rather than some other man's child. With a marriage, there was a recognized social contract between the man and woman involved, and it meant that there was a legal setting for the estate distribution. Again, today these things are less relevant. With the invention of DNA testing we can now conclusively prove a child's parents, further a person can choose to leave his or her estate to anyone or any group named in a legally-binding document called a will. The religious reasoning is something that can't be justified in the modern era.

Image source unknown.

Monogamy is not natural, exactly. It's true that for the survival of our species, since children require around 15 years to reach maturity pair-bonding of the parents served this interest. We evolved to form family units in which the father and mother cooperated to provide for and protect the young. I say fifteen years, but that's arguable, give or take a few years. The point is that it takes many years before a young human would be able to survive without parents taking care of him or her. Still, we evolved societies into which we live for all our lives, and which continue the benefits we gained as a child from having parents and family working together. But, at odds with this pair-bonding trait we evolved is another evolutionary trait found in both men and women. This is a trait that is so powerful that it's the underlying force making marital infidelity actually a fairly common occurrence. In males, of most species, the ability to spread the genetic code to create as many offspring as possible has been a great force in ensuring the survival of a species. Ours is no exception to that fact. In females, particularly in humans, there evolved a tendency to find a mate to bond with who can provide well, but to seek to reproduce with other males who have more desirable physical traits. A woman is predisposed biologically, by evolution, to settle down with the man who has wealth, but to have affairs with men who seem to be more fit and healthy. In either case, our species evolutionary legacy is conflicted and neither trait is ethically better or worse than the other. These just are the facts about our evolution and our nature. So, this leads to a problem. How do we reconcile our enlightenment and our nature to best suit ourselves? As long as we deny our nature we will find ourselves less happy and healthy than we can and ought to be.

The fact that there are women who want to silently suffer a mediocre experience is saddening and ultimately self-destructive. The idea of putting up with not getting the most out of sex because of not wanting to disappoint will backfire. It's true that many younger people, with their tremendous amounts of inexperience, are more prone to not communicate properly, but they need to be encouraged to communicate. Fundamentally, by trying to please one's partner by not offering instruction and not communicating, one is building resentment and frustration in oneself and one's partner. Also, when one discovers one's partner has not been fully engaged it most certainly is a serious disappointment and ruins the experience. By doing this, some women are causing two people to become resentful of the woman in question, herself and her partner. The notion of quietly accepting poor performance needs to be put to an end. Though it may be true of some men, it is almost exclusively, in this issue, women causing their own problem. I believe this condition is largely due to archaic notions that still afflict us. Even today, popular culture suggests women are supposed to be submissive and to use sex as a tool instead of enjoying it for their own pleasure. So many socializing forces, such as many women's magazines and romance movies and fairy-tales still perpetuate the destructive narrative and bad advice.

If women try experimenting with themselves, and then have completely honest and straightforward talks with their partners about what works for them, then sex would likely be far more enjoyable for most. It seems that many women have some kind of hang-up about both masturbating and about communicating with their partners. That's not to say that there aren't guys who don't listen, of course there are, but there's also no reason for a woman to assume that sex can't be great, or better. Most guys really do want to satisfy their partners, and no one is a mind-reader. In fact, no one, of either gender, is a mind-reader. No one can know things that are not told to them. And, it is unreasonable and inexcusable to continue to behave as if it's fair to expect people to be more than who and what they are. It's unjust to think that one's partner should live up to and perform like the fantasies that have been implanted by corporate interests like Hollywood and molded by corrupt influences like the Puritan church of hundreds of years ago. I believe it is high-time we as a species move into the modern era – we need to evolve out of the stagnate cesspit of the out-dated misconceptions. This is only going to happen as we continue to challenge the standard, and help to enlighten others.

Image Copyright 2015 by Joshua Michail.

Sex is the most beautiful thing people can do with each other, intimately. Sex, however, is not love. Love and sex can and do often go together, but one ought not to confuse these two separate things. Many people believe that sex with someone they love is beautiful, and they're not wrong, but sex is beautiful even without love. In a way, sex gets a bad rap on that regard, because many people ignore the fact that love is separate from sex. But, I blame religion for that, and many more mental handicaps. Religion must be expelled from the bed sheets. The single greatest toxin to humanity and to sex is religion. The fact that people feel guilt for doing and enjoying a natural and beautiful thing is something that religion alone has foisted upon us. If we are half as wise as we like to think our species to be, we must change our ways. We can no longer afford to pretend that we are not what we are. Our concepts of marriage romantic relationships must change, we ought to embrace our nature. We can, of course continue to marry the ones we love, but we should expect and embrace the fact that sex is not and never has been and never will be confined to marriage. We must accept that we could forge a new model, the family remains, but why not have multiple wives for each man and multiple husbands for each woman? Why not accept polyamory? After all, not only do we naturally desire more than one partner for the rest of our lives, in regards to sex, but we are perfectly capable of loving more than one partner at the same time. We must also embrace the rights of women to be equal to men, including in their sex lives. Why should we look upon a woman who enjoys sex as someone to be shamed? It's a shame on us if we continue this “slut shaming”. We must not interfere with women as they pursue their sexual satisfaction as they see fit, and embrace the happiness this brings not only those women, but also ourselves as a society. We must shed the severe hindrances that make life less happy. 

Read more about this subject in the book: To Make a Better World -- available here.

Copyright © 2015, by Joshua Michail

 All Rights Reserved.

Follow and retweet on Twitter.                          Like and share on Facebook.

To Make A Better World - Excerpt #6

I will be publishing my book -- To Make A Better World -- on the 30th of April, 2015. That's later this week, Thursday to be precise! So here is the final teaser excerpt from my book, and it's a "two-for". You will be able to get your eBook copy through Amazon.com. Be sure to share this excerpt far and wide, enjoy, tell me your thoughts and, thanks.

Image Copyright, 2015, by Joshua Michail

FROM: To Make A Better World; The handbook for good secular living in the modern era.

 This excerpt -- #6 -- from two chapters: FROM: "Morality & Secularity" and FROM: "Honor in this Modern Age". 

(NOTE: ellipses indicate skipped content.)

We are moral. At least as far as it being a part of being human goes. Of course, there are some who are not. But, mostly we are moral. The fundamental point is that since morality is the evolved trait that helps our species work together for our mutual benefit, logically it is not only the religious who are moral. That is a sort of birthright of our species. Morality is a defining feature of us. This, alone, would be good enough to say we can be good without god. But, religions are actually, in and of themselves, corrosive to morality. The first problem is that they demand one place the supposed deity above everyone else. This is contradictory to what works for a community.

I don't want to hear excuses about how someone else is behaving badly. You are responsible for yourself. No other person is responsible for what you say or do. Firstly, one should understand that whether or not other people behave morally must in no way influence whether one behaves morally him or her self. We are all responsible for our own actions and words. No individual can rationally justify his/her behavior on account of another. The greater good is achieved by the accumulation of individual acts of good deeds. 
As Robert F. Kennedy had said: “Some people see things as they are and say, 'why?' I dream of things that never were and say, 'why not?'” But society can never be improved without the benevolent actions of individuals. The argument against behaving properly that so many others are not also behaving properly is flawed. Easily rebutted with something like “If everyone else were jumping off a cliff, should you as well?” If every person were to excuse him or her self from being ethical and moral on the imagined pretense that no one else is then no good change in the society can happen.

I'd say that without morals a person is just an animal and dishonors himself/herself, one has no dignity without a strong self discipline. This doesn't mean that we need religion or spirituality. No moral code worthy of the human intellect could come from religion, but rather from an honest respect for one's fellow people. So that those who would think everything is permitted because they've shed the chains of delusion, are in fact no better than those who remain chained in slavery to the dogma of cult leaders. For, however liberating it certainly is and however noble it is to see the light and walk out of that cave of perverse corruption that charlatans will push, we are not honorable nor dignified when we mistreat others, when we make ourselves lawless brutes. When we fail to discipline ourselves, to abandon ourselves the to the animal within, we become unworthy of any respect. When we fail to maintain inside ourselves a compass, not given from out of the archaic ethers but rather from our fellowship of humanity and our empathy, we make ourselves deserving of the receiving back the abuses that we give. . . .

Ethics are a system of behavioral rules based on both empathy and morality and is designed to address specific possible situations. While morality is a set of general philosophical codes of right and wrong, of justice and of social order. Thus murder is immoral, but sometimes killing another person can be ethically acceptable, such as in the case of self-defense against someone who is a clear and immediate threat to one's life. Then, we can say that it must be our natural ability to comprehend what another person experiences, to grasp how we would feel in the same situation. That is the foundation. We would not want someone kill us, so we can appreciate that others would not want us to kill them. From this the moral code is constructed, in large part due to all the other things we are taught as we develop intellectually.

Essentially, a person must understand that there is a greater and more personal advantage to being ethical and moral than just improving society. When one chooses to behave in accordance with his or her code of ethics and morality, a code that values peace, respect and logical order, then one finds himself or herself avoiding many problems and dangers. Being an ethical and moral person means that one can enjoy a quality of life that would not be possible otherwise. Even when no other person behaves as a human one who refuses to degrade himself or herself, one who chooses to behave as a human ought to, can take comfort in knowing that he/she is exercising the true human potential. It is much better to be a good person and so earn the trust and respect of others than to behave immorally and earn the disdain and disrespect of others. When one behaves morally one can hold his/her head upright and take pride in exercising superiority over the primitive animal urges and tendencies, a superiority afforded by the nature of being human.

From the chapter on honor:

There are essentially two kinds of honor any person holds. The first is “interpersonal honor” in which a person's level of honor is relevant to his or her interactions with others on a daily basis. A person might consider you more honorable if you have been a good friend to him or her. But it is important to note that one's honor is not affected by insults. That is to say that your honor does not in any way depend on a person calling you, for example, a “bitch” or calling your friend or mate such a name. On the contrary, a person who is attempting to antagonize a person by calling another names is in fact damaging his or her own honor by doing so. The second kind of honor is “social honor” in which a person is considered by the society to be of a certain level of honor based on the individual's value to the society. For example, an ordinary person is considered to be of standard honor, while a scientist, doctor, politician or judge is considered to be “honorable” (as an elevated status) and thus is given that title.

While both types of honor are affected by a person's actions, behaviors, achievements and contributions, the interpersonal type will vary among the people one associates with. Whereas, the social type is less movable and depends more on the person's position and accomplishments as recognized by the society. The importance of honor in the society is that one's treatment by others and the society as a whole is dependent upon one's honor. A dishonorable person receives less respect and is often shunned by others. A person should therefore wish to avoid the loss of his or her honor. Meanwhile, those who improve our society are rewarded with a higher regard by the society and the people within.

© 2015, Joshua Michail

   

Facebook.com/JoshuaMichail       joshuamichail.blogspot.com      Twitter.com/JoshuaMichail

To Make A Better World - Excerpt #2

Ten days ago I put out the first of several teaser excerpts from my book -- To Make A Better World. Today I'm releasing the second teaser excerpt. This one is from the chapter On Society and Socialization. These excerpts are leading up to publication of my book. I hope that you enjoy it and feel free to share the link to this page with your friends, and to share your thoughts with me. Thanks.

FROM: To Make A Better World; The handbook for good secular living in the modern era.
by Joshua Michail.

Excerpt #2, from: On Society & Socialization. 

Copyright 2015, Joshua Michail, all rights reserved.

Ourselves and the other apes are social creatures. We live in groups. All of our intermediary species, between us and our common ancestor with the chimps lived in groups. This communal living, the tribes, are an evolutionary trait. And it has served our species well to always be in groups. Tribes provide a clear survival advantage. We are able to defend ourselves mutually, rather than all alone. As the saying goes, "two minds are better than one". While other animals have a distinct advantage in not having binocular vision, in that their eyes can cover more area, binocular vision is likely a key part of intelligent life. The greater range of vision makes it harder for predators to sneak up on an animal, but depth perception allows greater manipulation of one's environment. Some animals, including humans, evolved binocular vision. This also has a distinct advantage, but it also has a disadvantage. We can perceive depth, we can look and gauge how far something is, because of binocular vision. This is the advantage of having two eyes side-by-side, as opposed to on either side of our head. But, we can't see as much area at once. Our field of view is limited, comparatively. All of our ancestor intermediary species and our fellow apes also have or had binocular vision. But, when there are more than one animal working together, they can cover more area, visually, and therefore alert others to stalking predators. Our ancestors, thus, gained the advantage of depth perception without entirely sacrificing the advantage of greater field of vision. Very early on in our evolutionary history community and cooperation proved to be a survival advantage.


Social conditioning, socialization, is a normal process and it is a natural consequence of living in a society. We are taught when we are young what is expected of us, our gender roles, our cultural traditions, our group values and our principles. All of this is then reinforced over time by our peers, our friends, family and other people we have contact with. The process, itself, is important. It helps to create and maintain the much needed social cohesiveness. It's a glue to keep a society together. And a society that stays together is functional. However, what a society considers important, as a rule, can sometimes be quite dysfunctional. Social attitudes can sometimes be good and sometimes bad. Each of us ought to be concerned with whether a normative is healthy for our society or detrimental. And we ought to be interested in correcting the path of our societies when we see such problems. Luckily, there are ways to do this. Though it may seem improbable, raising awareness and changing attitudes can be done by individuals.

The process of socialization begins for each person the moment we are born and never stops until the moment we are dead. Every day, our friends and family inform us in this manner. TV shows and commercials, radio programs, movies, music, billboards, posters, internet sites, magazines and even books all are forms by which the the process informs all of us. None of us are immune to it. It's not a bad thing in and of itself. What is bad is the content, the message, what we are being taught. The kind of social participants we are being molded into. We must always question this. We are right to examine the societal norms we are being taught and that are being reinforced in us. Sometimes the ideas that are commonly taught as normative behavior are acceptable, or even beneficial. But, some other times the idea is bad, useless or even harmful. And we have a duty to humanity and our society to fix those problems.

We were socialized by the toys we played with as kids. We are pressured by our peers to “be cool” as teenagers and young adults. When we watch television shows and commercials often we either relate to or idolize the content. Most obviously, our parents socialize us while we are growing up by teaching us how to behave, what is right and wrong, the way we talk and many other things. Movies socialize us to love fast cars, big bright explosions and fashion. Magazines instruct us on how to think of or relate to members of the other sex, or how to dress to impress people, or what to think on a particular point in politics and sports, etcetera. We relate to music, often we will hear a melody or a tune and feel an emotional response to it, but we also interpret the lyrics and identify with them. The vehicles for our socialization, our training to meet societal normatives, is a seemingly endless list with all varying in degrees to which they teach or reinforce the society's normatives. Typically, most of those things are also genuinely the things they appear to be, while still being such a vehicle for social conditioning. For instance, a car commercial on TV is actually meant to inform people of the car being available for purchase, and such advertising is actually intended to sell the car. And the car, itself, is really just a device for transporting people and luggage. The point is that the practical often serves as the carrier for the piggy-backing of the social conditioning, such as in the advertisements. And even then, the advertisers are usually not actively intending to reinforce social normatives, rather they may knowingly be exploiting them for the purpose of selling the product.

There may be said to be two forms of socializing material, one that establishes or instills certain notions while the other exploits or reinforces existing social notions and mores. “Mores” are a set of moral norms or customs which have been derived from practices that are generally accepted by a society, but not from written laws. Though, some socializing material may be both reinforcing and establishing at the same time, e.g.: GI Joe toys and Barbie dolls. Such perpetuate existing gender-role stereotypes, while establishing normal gender identity and teaching the young person how to fulfill his/her expected gender role. Some others might exploit and reinforce normal gender roles simultaneously, such as a TV commercial with a man driving an expensive car past a line of beautiful women who all turn their heads and stare at him lustfully. This sort is implying that for men when they have that car women will be interested in them. And for women it suggests that she should like a man with that car, because most other women will. Such an advertisement exploits the social norms because it targets adults, who can afford the car and thus have been around long enough to already have been conditioned. While it also reinforces the mores because it treats such ideas as normal and expected. An example of the more common sort that only establish such mores may be a parent's instruction to his/her child to eat all of the vegetables before being allowed to have dessert. Though it should be said, teaching children the idea of delaying gratification – having the dessert after dinner – is good. Being taught this may help the person to be better disciplined and so more likely to achieve goals, put in the hard work, and then later in life to be able to enjoy the rewards. In fact, those who can delay gratification tend to be more successful. Successful in their education, in their careers and in life over-all. This is, nonetheless, an example of part of the process of socialization, the parents teaching that in their culture dessert comes after dinner, and that this is what is considered “normal”.

Some socializing material may actually be distracting or detrimental to a healthy lifestyle. Though much is quite useful. In particular, among the detrimental, are the archaic gender-roles. Though the old standard idea of the woman submissive to, and dependent upon, the man once served a useful purpose, it is now out-of-date and quite harmful. Several thousand years ago, when to feed a family necessarily meant hard labor in the fields all day, it makes sense that women would stay in the home. They would usually do all sorts of less labor intensive, though important, work. Such work would be cleaning, cooking and raising the children, of course. But, it would also include weaving fabric and making clothes, feeding the animals, making pottery and preparing foods. While the men would be hunting animals and tilling fields and felling trees and building the homes. This was way back before there was much labor-saving technology. When hunting was done with spears or by archery. When farming the fields meant using thick sticks with stones attached to til the land and walking along harvesting by hand. Certainly women often worked the fields with the men. But, physiologically men tend to naturally be stronger than women. And the work that needed doing was very tough. Some work was demanding on muscle and some work demanded more dexterity, but required less muscle strength. To succeed meant having those who were better suited to the work doing that job, instead of another. It simply made sense, in that case, that traditional division of labor. But, that was then, this is now. The complete truth is that today there simply is no logically valid argument to justify maintaining those now out-dated normatives. Just as there never was a logically valid argument to support the selfish thought that women are not equal to men. Even with labor division being assigned according to the needs and capabilities of so very long ago that would not mean one is inherently worth more than another. Thankfully, many people have for a long time worked hard and have been quite successful in reshaping our Western society's normatives regarding equality.

The fact that those archaic gender-roles have persisted to this day within our culture speaks to the nature of the socialization process. Parents may teach their children many things. But, a child's primary relationship is with his or her parents. Girls learn how to be women, mostly, from their mothers and boys learn how to be a man, mostly, from their fathers. Principally speaking that is, of-course there are other significant influencing sources. Even more to the point, though, is that usually people learn how to relate to others through their relationships with their parents. One learns what to expect in a romantic relationship by witnessing how one's mother and father interacted. Indeed, our ideal of a relationship with a mate is mostly built upon the model our parents provided. Whether it is good or bad, this is the way most people have learned to relate with their mating partners. As a matter of fact, this fundamental aspect – in the worst cases – can cause a young woman to believe that if a man loves a woman he shows it by beating her and degrading her. Clearly, this is because she grew up in a home, in which, her father would beat and degrade her mother and her mother constantly endured it. This can also often explain why a young male might be so abusive toward women. Sadly, this happens all too often. But that also speaks to the nature of the process of socialization.

© 2015, Joshua Michail, all rights reserved.

     Facebook.com/JoshuaMichail    joshuamichail.blogspot.com    Twitter.com/JoshuaMichail

Be Good To Each Other, A Sunday Secular Sermon.

How about a sermon for this Sunday? Since I am an ordained minister, and an atheist, I'll offer a secular one. I believe that sermons can be good. They can be motivational, since they are meant to be food for thought. So, I say we should be good to each other. How many of you would consider yourselves to be Humanists?

The nature of the ethical and moral philosophy of Humanism is that we must be concerned about the suffering of all people. The basis for our Humanist morals and ethics is solely the consideration of the well-being of others. Life is too short. There is all too abundant sources of misery, pain, illness and abuse, and all too many of us endure these things. All of us suffer to some degree, from some thing or another. Surely, if we can think of our own struggles, our own suffering, we can understand the need to not cause more for other people? It should be easy for us to think of when we wished for someone to help us in our times of need. And so, it should be easy to realize the need to help others in their times of hardship. But, we also reject the outdated and irrelevant claims to morality that so many religions proclaim to hold. We must question the motivations, effects, and uselessness of such religious claims to morality.

The fact is, religious claims to morality are: a few coincidentally good, most irrelevant and some even quite immoral and harmful. For instance, it's easy for Humanists to agree that murder, theft and lying are immoral acts. The harm these acts cause to humans is well understood. When we are concerned with lessening the suffering of all people, we quickly come to the conclusion that murder, theft and lying are inherently wrong. We can easily understand that they are immoral if you consider deliberately causing suffering to be immoral. But, what about saying that homosexuality is a “sin”? Many religious people believe the simple natural being of someone feeling attraction and love for another person of the same sex and same orientation is supposedly wrong, or immoral. Yet, there is not one singular reason of even slight validity that can be shown to be relevant. Just because you might think it wrong to be gay does not in any way mean that it causes harm to other people. There is simply no tangible evidence, no arguable rationale, no conceivable way to claim that one person's sexual orientation really has anything to do with the suffering of other people.

The best the religious can do is to argue that they believe that gay people will go to hell for being the who they are. But, this requires proof to support the belief. This requires the evidence that no religious person has ever been able to produce in thousands of years. However, it is quite clear, and there is plenty of evidence, to show that acting on this myth-based belief is extraordinarily harmful to humanity. In fact, realizing that religion does harm to people, that it actually causes suffering, a Humanist must be inclined to speak out against it. It is the religion that drives people to oppose so forcefully the equality of rights for people who love each other, but happen to be of the same sex. The religious are motivated by their unfounded and invasive beliefs to fight against people for nothing more than those people not matching the ideal of the religious people. They are instructed by their religion to impose on others against their victims' wills what they think is good, but for which they cannot show a legitimate argument for suffering. And this means the religiously-motivated are actually causing the harm and suffering that we Humanists find immoral. There are, of course, plenty of other examples. But, that should suffice for this point.

I also believe we should consider what morals and ethics have to do with one's honor. Fundamentally, there is honor is doing good. There is also dishonor in doing harm. This means that religiously-motivated people who impose their beliefs, which are not concerned with actual tangible human suffering, they are dishonoring themselves. While those who are only concerned with helping to eliminate suffering, based on tangible and actual evidence, they are motivated honorably. Why do you help people in need? If you do so because you wish to alleviate their suffering, then you are improving your honor. If you do so because you are told to do that, then you do not improve your honor. If you help, but believe you will be rewarded, even in some imagined afterlife, and avoid punishment thereby in that same afterlife, then you do yourself no honor. Such a reason is not selfless, but quite selfish. A desire to gain some reward, like heaven, or even an Earthly reward, cannot be an honorable motivation to help. One can only gain honor by helping others, if one's reason is solely that one understands suffering and wishes to end that suffering for others.

So, I say that we should all be exceptionally kind to each other. Be generous, be respectful, be thoughtful, be helpful, be compassionate, because that is the right thing to do. For there is a bounty of honor, only when you do not deliberately seek such honor. I say help others, because it helps them. Be a Humanist. Be human and humane toward others. Being a Humanist is not merely the honorable thing to do, but it is the human thing to do. One who fails to be a Humanist, is short of being fully human.

Copyright © 2014, Joshua Michail

All Rights Reserved.