Why are guys such pigs? It’s a question I hear over and over again from my female friends, and believe me it isn’t a rhetorical question; it’s a query born of frustration after having been on the receiving end of male indiscretions and indifference.

Well, defining the behavior of guys is a good start. What do we do that make us pigs? Sexual infidelity is often the first crime on the list. We have a tendency to mess around and I don’t mean in a good way. Why is that? Well, science has explained it better than I could but it basically goes back to a primal urge to propagate the species and specifically, our own DNA. The more sexual partners we had (back in the Stone Age we’re talking here) the more likely that a baby would be produced. Given the infant mortality rates, it behooved us to reproduce as many times as possible in order to have a good shot at keeping the genetic strain around for the next generation.

Although I’m not sure it has been proven yet, I also believe that there was another imperative. It is believed that at one time, Homo sapiens existed at the same time Neanderthal did. Our only means of insuring the survival of the species given the existence of a competing species was to breed like rabbits and win the race on sheer numbers. Apparently, the strategy worked but quite frankly the urge to continue the race never really left our basic instincts.

That more or less explains what motivates us but we’re evolved now, right? We should be able to temper our urges with the knowledge that the behavior is not only no longer necessary but actually harmful. If we haven’t gotten the message, nature is sending it to us with diseases like Herpes and AIDS. Monogamy is much safer than spreading the genetic strain among multiple partners, but as a rule guys are a bit slower on the uptake. We still don’t get it.

So why are guys so obsessed with sex? We think about it on the average about once every two or three minutes, much more often than women do. There are a couple of reasons for that. For women, sex is as much an emotional act as a physical one. Women see sex as a function of love much more than men do and I honestly don’t blame them. After all, when a woman consents to sex she is consenting to the invasion of her body by a foreign object. How many guys are willing to consent to that, especially in such a vulnerable way (I’m talking straight guys here) when you think about it. For guys, the emotional part of sex is like an act of warfare – invading and conquering. The more territory we invade, the closer we get to winning the war. In that sense, sex is like a gigantic game of Risk to us men. The man who conquers the most territories wins.

Guys are also highly visual. We are turned on by sight. That’s why we are so into porn. That’s also why our heads can be turned by a beautiful woman in a teeny weeny bikini. It’s not a commentary on the desirability of the woman we’re with. Most of the time we’re not even interested in cheating on our partners. However, that doesn’t mean we don’t look at the menu and fantasize about ordering off of it from time to time.

In that sense, women play into our behavior big time. Once upon a time, women relied on men for protection, for obtaining food and obtaining shelter. A woman without a mate ran a very real risk of starving, of freezing or of being raped without having a man to provide her with the necessities. Therefore it was in a woman’s best interests to be as attractive to men as possible in order to obtain a mate. That kind of behavior has continued into the 21^st century. If it didn’t, the fashion and cosmetics industries would be obsolete.

That’s not to say that men don’t want to be sexually attractive either. After all, part of our genetic mandate is to find the best possible mate in order to create offspring that have a better chance of survival. Men being such visual creatures, we define the best possible mates by how physically attractive they are. Society being what it is, the competition for the best looking females is fierce so it is necessary for guys to be attractive in order to land the prettiest mate.

But it isn’t just for that reason that we want to be acknowledged as sexually attractive. Our male ego, our self-image, revolves around our ability to be sexually attractive. Often as we grow older, we need validation that we can continue to attract sexual partners, even if we’re in a stable loving relationship. Those of us who are more evolved get that acknowledgement by flirting and being flirted with in return. Those of us who are less evolved have to have more concrete proof; e.g. they cheat. Never underestimate the ability of the male ego to screw up a good thing.

The flirting is not always an indication of a desire to stray. I’m no different than any other guy – I want acknowledgement that I’m still attractive and desirable, just like every other knuckle-dragging Neanderthal that drinks beer and watches football on Sundays. However, I’m also a bit of a realist. I realize that given the state of my body that I’m not going to elicit the kind of oohs and aahs that Taylor Lautner running bare-chested down a beach is going to. Given the limitations of my physical appearance, I have to find that validation by giving it to others first, and allowing myself to be more attractive emotionally. Now granted, that’s not the only reason that I do what I do but I’d be lying if I didn’t say that wasn’t a significant part of it.

Not all of us cheat. Some of us have enough empathy or loyalty to remain true to our partners, but unfortunately a too-large percentage of the male population is unfaithful. In that sense, we are certainly pigs but don’t give up hope; a new species of wild guinea pig has been discovered to be monogamous. If they can do it, there might be hope for the male species yet.

Cheating might not even be our most heinous crime against the opposite sex. Taking them for granted just might be the number one relationship killer. I can’t tell you how many women I’ve talked to who have complained that their mate doesn’t appreciate them. Men rarely acknowledge the contributions of our mates to the relationship and quite frankly, we acknowledge our feelings towards our mates even more rarely.

Women have lower self-esteem than men. That’s pretty much documented. They require that acknowledgement that they are loved, that they are needed, that they are appreciated. Ignore this at your peril, gentlemen or you may find yourself wondering why your wife packed her bags and took the kids to her mother’s. Part of our job in our relationship is not only to sit on the couch and control the remote; it’s also to make sure our wives are aware of their meaning to us. Ladies, do give your men a break though. We have been conditioned since birth that expressing our feelings is an unmanly thing to do. I know, its horse manure but it is still sadly, the reality of men. He may not necessarily say how he feels in words but keep an eye out for his deeds. Men who walk the walk are worth a hundred who can talk the talk. If they are consistently there for you and treat you like a princess, even if they don’t say it they are telling you how they feel. Men are doers by nature and most prefer to let their actions do the talking. Try and keep that in mind.

So are men really pigs? To a certain extent, yes we are. Some of it is part of the genetic code but some of it is environmental; we were raised this way. Nature vs. nurture after all is less the point than nature combined with nurture. Can we help the way we act? Yes and no. We’re generally aware of what we’re doing most of the time (unless we’re drunk in which case all bets are off) and those of us with enough empathy can reign in our more heinous instincts and act honorably. However too many guys don’t care enough to bother. We can get into the reasons for it but it boils down to self-centeredness, and that’s one quality guys have in spades, sadly. Those of us who act like pigs tend to do so because we don’t care about anyone more than we care about ourselves. That’s one DNA trait I personally wouldn’t mind seeing bred out of the species.

This may not be a great title for a blog as we are heading into the season of big meals and lots of extraneous food.  If this heading were literally true, there would be days when I would mostly be composed of fudge.  Let’s go with the metaphorical meaning instead.

I was going through some old photos from Mexico the other day, including the trip Jerry and I took to a nature preserve where there are tens of thousands of flamingos.  You probably know that flamingos are pink because their

Flamingos at Celestún, Mexico

 diets consist almost entirely of shrimp.  It got me thinking about how what I take into myself at least partially makes me who I am.  Yes, it’s part of the nature vs. nurture conversation, which I’ve always believed is not an either/or proposition, but a both/and.  I am who I am because of my genetic makeup, certainly, but also because of the whole range of experiences I had in my formative years:  family, school, church, friends, etc. 

I don’t think the “nurture” part ceases when we become adults.  The difference is that now I have a few more choices in what goes into the mix than I did when I was a child.  Of course, some things are out of my control, but I can choose what I read and study, how I spend my leisure time, who are the friends I turn to for counsel. 

Because we are humans, not flamingos, we can also choose to some extent the amount of influence these things have over us.  We can decide that a day of frightening news will inform but not overwhelm us.  We can determine whether we will give more weight to positive events or negative ones.  We can resolve to be moved by prayer and the kind words of a loved one rather than by anger aimed in our direction.  We can elect to think calming thoughts when stress hangs heavy over our heads.

The holidays are on their way, with all sorts of influences, and all sorts of decisions to be made regarding what to do about them.  Will we be able to sort through the stuff, taking in mostly the good and letting go of the bad?  Will we find ways of helping others receive good things in their lives as well?

Though I’ll have many moments of relapse during the next couple of months when I won’t remember to be persuaded by peaceful things rather than stressful ones, I hope I’ll remember the flamingo and resolve to pay more attention to absorbing the good things while letting the less good slide by a little more often.

Now I think I’ll go have a shrimp salad.  And a (tiny) piece of fudge.

© Melissa Bane Sevier, 2009

Studies show that little boys show a stronger preference for trucks and action figures, then girls do for gender specific toys.  Does child’s play lead to gender stereotypes and just how much of a role do Barbies and action figures play in the development of gender roles?   Much more then people realize, I would imagine.  I also speculate that the extent of gender specific toys has more of an impact on the creation and continuing of gender sterotypes then is realized.

When I was a little girl, I  was a tomboy.  My best friend was a neighborhood boy, named Todd, and I had two brothers.  As much as I liked dolls and barbies, I liked action figures, box cars, sports, star wars, video games, and all kinds of things that weren’t considered girl’s play.  My friend Todd and I switched off between playing with boy toys and playing with girl toys.  Although I experienced some societal pressure to be girly, and subtle pressure from my parents, like getting dolls rather then transformers as gifts, I was never all that discouraged from being a tomboy.   On the other hand, my friend Todd was clearly discouraged from playing with girls’ toys.  One Christmas he wanted a doll and his dad become really upset.  He ended up getting the doll, but the message was sent that it wasn’t normal or ok for a boy to enjoy dolls.  Due to fear that he was becoming too girly, his parents only let him invite boys to his next birthday party, and I was slowly removed from his life, along with his enjoyment of girly toys.  I don’t have any specific recollections, but I would guess that my brothers were encouraged to play with boy, rather then girl, toys.

In my husband’s family, there was less pressure to conform to gender stereotypes.  His parents bought him and his brother dolls and the males weren’t as discouraged from showing emotion.  Even today, the gender roles in his family are more flexible then in most.  The men are more nurturing and emotional and his brother is a primary caretaker of his children by choice.  The women in the family have advanced degrees and successful careers.

How much of a role do subtle and not so subtle cues from adults about what’s gender approriate play on gender related toy preferences?  Over time even subtle influences can become major influences

Boys toys include athletic, construction, and violence-oriented toys such as legos, games, sporting goods, and guns. Girls toys include dress-up outfits, toy houses, kitchen sets, dolls, barbies, and medicine kits. Using toys, parents teach stereotypical gender roles to their children.  Girls are taught to be nurturers, homemakers, and to show off their bodies and focus on fashion and appearance.  While boys learn to build things, fix things, to be athletic, rough and tough, to work with tools, to tinker with things and explore, to like cars, trucks, and electronics.  Upon closer examination, you’ll notice that toys influences children’s first impressions of sexuality as well.  Barbie has the perfect body and shows it off.  Barbie was actually initially created as a sexually appealing toy for adult men.  It’s not uncommon to see female characters in revealing clothing in star wars and other action figures sets.  Females appear on sports shows like wrestling and football primarly for the purpose of men’s sexual interest.

Toys teach children who they are supposed to be  and what they are supposed to do. Girls are supposed to be sexy, delicate, nurturing.  Girls are supposed to chase after boys, then stay home and raise the babies, cook and clean. Boys they are supposed to be strong, macho, capable of fixing and building things, able to navigate, self sufficient, and drawn to sex and violence.  The next time you walk through a toy section or buy a girl a barbie, be aware of the role toys play in encouraging gender stereotypes.

[via Toronto Star] :

It used to be said that biology is destiny, as if each human brain contained its own personal genetic limitations… Many scientists now believe that 20 per cent of a person’s outcome in life is the result of innate brain capacity. The other 80 per cent is based on what happens after birth.

So we actually have a percentage now ?  Seems a bit too concrete for me, the brain is too mysterious.  Mystery is one of my favourite things in the world.

This is my response to a readers comment that gender differences are innate, discounting the role of societal influences.

The view that gender differences are primarily innate continues to be the most prevalent view, no doubt.  Calling all gender differences innate fails to account for the deeply ingrained cultural influences and societal pressures that play a tremendous role in making each of us who we are, or to consider the causes of those forces. The majority of studies on gender have sought to provide us with support and explanation for why things are the way they are. That view makes efforts towards change and improvement a waste of time. Fortunately the focus of scientists is slowly changing. What it comes down to is that there are more similarities then differences between men and women, blacks and whites, groups of people in general, and all the focus on stereotypical differences only breeds inequality, lack of understanding, and distrust between the sexes. The view that women are highly emotional, fragile, and uninterested in sex and the male body, makes women vulnerable, and puts women at a real disadvantage in today’s world. It prevents us from expressing parts of who we are, and from feeling secure, independent, and capable. If you call these differences innate, that means we must accept things as they are, which makes it impossible to effectuate positive change. I do not believe nor accept that inequalities between the sexes are beyond people’s control. Studies of epigenetics reveal that although genetics predispose people towards certain traits, environmental factors play an important role in determining which genes are expressed and to what extent. People are capable of change, people are moldable, and environmental influences do play a large role in making us who we are.

More and more, scientists are learning that gender differences are attributed to nurture, rather then nature.  Contrary to popular belief, boys have no greater inherent abilities in navigation, sense of direction, and spatial skills then girls.  It turns out, both sexes start out with equal ability, but girls don’t achieve their full potential.  The reason: Boys are given more freedom and are encouraged to explore, tinker, and figure out things for themselves.  People are more protective of girls.  Because of this, girls are discouraged from exploration, learning by trial and error, and ever reaching their full potential.  People are much quicker to jump in and help out a girl who doesn’t immediately know what to do.  Boys, even if they ask for help, are more often encouraged to figure things out on their own.  Soon, boys learn not to ask for help, and girls become quick to rely on others when uncertain.  When together, boys are more likely to drive then girls, so they gain more experience.  As a result of all of these factors, females have much less confidence and much more anxiety about driving and getting lost then males.  There’s no difference however in the navigational abilities of men and women who have had equal levels of navigational related exploration and experience.  The study that lead to these results was limited to spatial and navigational abilities.  How many other supposed innate gender differences are solely a result of our socialization?  Follow blog or subscribe to RSS feeds and I’ll continue to keep you informed.   Please share your comments and suggest future topics of interest.

This mockumentary made me feel very sad. Heavily misanthropic, White Lightnin’ is like a suicidal person’s dream come true where everything shit about life is confirmed and everything good about mankind questioned: forget recycling and using less petrol, we should all just commit world-wide mass-suicide and wipe the world clean of humans forever.

It raised some pretty interesting issues in my mind regarding nature vs. nurture in criminals’ motives and minds. Are some people just ‘born’ to be ill-intentioned for the rest of their lives? Do they have to put in twice, thrice the effort ‘normal’ people do to remain on the right side of social morality? Does an upbringing consisting of blind unconditional religiosity more often than not lead to depression, mental breakdown and an inclination towards violence?

Inspired by (though not truly based) on the life of Jesco White, White Lightnin’ was created by Vice Magazine creators Eddy Moretti and Shane Smith, and was directed by Dominic Murphy. Some of the scenes visually and atmospherically remind me of the films Bronson and Antichrist. If you can’t be arsed to see those two why not just watch this one, you’ll get the general gist of them all.

Over the past month or so I’ve been thinking about my role as a woman and soon-to-be wife. With a demanding job, freelance work, putting the condo on the market, planning the wedding and having Trav’s sister move in with us things are moving at an exceedingly fast pace and I was reaching burn out. I’m not special – all of my girlfriends seem to be stretched and stressed to the same levels that I am. C’est la vie I suppose.

I spend a lot of time and effort giving to other people and nurturing their needs. You see it’s my nature to nurture. It always has been, but recently I started asking the question, “Who is going to nurture me?”

I really struggled with this until I came to the conclusion that I would just need to nurture myself. So I made a vow to say no more often, to treat myself to a monthly massage, to get to bed early, go back to the gym regularly, and to spend more time doing the things that I truly enjoy and not just the things I  feel obligated to do.

Then last Friday I had breakfast with some of my besties and I realized that they are the people who nurture me in a way that no one else can (myself included). Their friendship provides me with peace, support, understanding, laughter, fashion advice, and so much more.

So as women do we have a responsibility to nurture each other as much as we nurture our husbands, children, bosses, coworkers, and family?

My gut feeling is that we have an innate ability to give each other the emotional support that no one else can. After all, no one in this world can relate to the pressure, joy, happiness and challenges that we uniquely face as modern working women.

I walked away from breakfast feeling refreshed and happy. While we don’t all face the same challenges, we certainly can relate to each other in a way that other people can’t.

So here’s to the amazing women in  my life who nurture me. Mwah!

Sigh…today’s New York Times article, “Understanding the Anxious Mind” by Robin Marantz Henig, has given my already troubled mind more anxious thoughts to mull over. It’s very timely for me, as I was just talking to my husband the other day about how far I’ve come in dealing with my anxiety since we met, but wondering aloud if I would ever be fully free from the looming dread that lurks in my mind like a hungry lion waiting to pounce. According to this article, I don’t stand a chance in chasing it away, but perhaps by arming myself with a chair and a whip could tame it enough to keep it in check.

The studies suggest I’ve most likely been wired this way since I was four months old, and probably since the day I was conceived with genes predisposed to a high-reactive temperament. No one would have described me as an “ebullient” child. I was always “behaviorally inhibited” as the article describes anxious babies, reacting to new stimuli with signs of distress. In most of my baby pictures I have pursed lips and a frown, already looking like a worried old lady. My mother wrote things in my baby book like, “Makes awful faces.” “Doesn’t like to be picked up by men unexpectedly. Only likes being on their laps when she instigates it.” “Plays better alone than with anyone.”  And just like the babies in these longitudinal studies, at thirty-two years old these behaviors hold true for me to this day. The article claims anxious people “cannot outrun their own natures. Consciously or unconsciously, they remain the same uneasy people they were when they were little.”

I always chalked up the way I am to a dysfunctional childhood – parents too young to ever give me the love and attention I needed, too poor to provide any social, economic or educational opportunities, too alcoholic and issue-ridden themselves to instill a sense of stability and safety in me. It’s difficult to compare how my three brothers turned out because they started self-medicating with drugs and alcohol at early ages and haven’t stopped since. I went the route of Mary in the article, my anxiety taking on the form of conscientiousness and self-control, over-achieving and worrying my way through school and life. The studies in the article found that two-thirds of people with high-reactive temperaments “learn to manage their anxiety, structuring their life to limit triggers”, are “obsessively well-prepared”, and operate with “caution, introspection, and the capacity to work alone.”  This certainly applies to me. I channel my anxiety by making lists and getting things done and find refuge from it in books, writing and art (solitary pursuits I’ve never found success in because I’m too afraid to put the work out there for fear of possible rejection). To make a living, I became a teacher, but quit after five years because the anxiety dreams about speaking in public and never feeling fully prepared or able to make a difference became too much to handle. I created the perfect job for myself. Dogwalker. Limited contact with people, hours alone with happy dogs on trails and in my car. I must be the most conscientious dogwalker there ever was. One of my clients told me I should be CEO of a large company the way I handle myself, but that would require unmanageable levels of anxiety for me.

Several times the anxiety has become unmanageable on my own. Not dealing with it directly worked for a long time. I found a decidedly non-anxious partner in life. My husband is about as happy-go-lucky as they come. I also managed to keep myself very very busy, but eventually all this running led to a panic attack and a deep depression when all the pain in the world, the “clamor of terror”described in the article, took me over. Again, I assumed these were normal reactions to experiencing loss – the death of two friends, one to suicide, another to a snowboarding accident in a matter of months seemed to be the trigger. But not wanting to live anymore was not a normal reaction, and hiding in bed was not an option, so I sought professional help. Being the daughter of a recovered alcoholic, I am overly wary of all possible habit-forming medications, so didn’t go the anti-depressant route. Instead, I saw a therapist regularly, one who seems to be of the nurture school of thought, and had me dredge up all my family crap in the hopes that in facing it, I could banish the demons and learn to fill my head with a more positive thought track than the one that’s been looping in my mind all my life. This has worked to an extent over the years I’ve been seeing her. I feel somewhat equipped with the measly tools I’ve cobbled together to keep the lion at bay, but the dread that if I let down my guard for an instant I will be devoured is ever present.

The article calls anxiety at this level a mental illness and claims 40 million Americans suffer from it, not counting “the far greater swath who are garden-variety worriers, people who fret when a child is late, who worry when they hear a siren headed toward home, who are sure that a phone call in the middle of the night means someone is dead.” Having now received several calls of that nature for healthy people I’ve loved who died suddenly, one of them my mother at age 50, I realize I will never be a “garden-variety worrier”. I am always waiting for the other shoe to drop, to lose everything in terrible events beyond my control.

Apparently, this is just how I’m wired. Whether it’s because my cerebral cortex is thick or thin, because my genes are faulty, or because my childhood was less than ideal doesn’t really matter, I guess. I just have to do the best I can with what I’ve been given, and try to see the positive. Like the article said, “Without inner-directed people who prefer solitude, where would we get the writers and artists and scientists and computer programmers who make society hum?” And I can pray that my son gets my husband’s genes and not mine. Since he’s three months old and is all smiles, I am hopeful that he doesn’t have any lions lurking in his future. Just an anxious mom.

That’s why I came to do the job I do, to train and develop potential writers in a “westernized university” in Almaty, Kazakhstan.  Are any of my Kazakh or Kazakhstani students born to write?  I need to discover who they are and encourage them.  I think I have some very good candidates already. I asked my writing students yesterday to grapple with the nature vs. nurture question: ”Are good writers born or can he/she develop her skills to become a good writer?”

In one of my groups, they took this question seriously and Abzal was the eloquent note-taker.  Of the five in his group, only one person believed that writing is inborn, the rest believed this is a skill that can be developed through a lifetime.  Sasha believed that writing talent is given by God, his examples were Pushkin, Shakespeare.  He claimed that these kinds of authors and writers are not born every day, and there is not any substitutes for them.

 Then Karlygash argued saying that it always depends on the social environment.  For example, Pushkin’s nanny raised him and developed his writing skills and there are a lot more examples. 

This group continued to discuss about modern authors such as Dan Brown, J.K. Rowling, Stepnegae Myer [?] and others.  They probably developed their skills and writing talent came to them through their lifetime and their environment…Then Zhandos and Azamat added that it could be talent can come from you when born, like the famous philosophers Socrates, Aristotle and Al-Farabi, there were no educating environment, but still they are the best and most knowledgeable authors.

 So, finally we agreed that, it’s so true, there is no answer to this question.

In another group, they had this to write:

Nariman:  I believe that a good writer of words has to have some kind of talent and it has to be developed further.

Aigerim:  I think writers develop his work into a writer with his talent which was given him by God.  He uses his own experience and inspiration.

Nargiz: I think its important to be interested in this writing activity because then he or she can develop his talent and become the best writer.

Igor:  In my opinion, I think that every person who is interested in writing can develop his/her writing skills and become a good writer without any talent.

 Another group was split 50/50, this is what their notes read:  We think that everyone has good skills to write, some develop them, others not.  Golden rule:  The more you read, the better you write!”

 One group wrote unanimously: “Good writers are born.”  E.G. M. Sholohov who wrote “Silent Don” he graduated only from two classes in school but he became a good writer without any development.

 Viktoriya wrote for her group the following:  “Aina thinks that the good writers are born because usually there is a talent and passion to writing.  Ilyas doesn’t agree and states that good writers are not born but are developed.  You can always improve and gain new skills.  Madi agrees with Ilyas.  He says that talent needs to be developed, cause it can fade away easily if it existed before.  Pavel is also for writer development.  There are two types of writers:  the one who is born with talent, the other who develops it.  I, Viktoriya, can agree with the guys. I’ve met a lot of journalists who did not have any skills in writing at school but after gaining some interest and skills became excellent authors.  But I also have some friends who are born talented writers.

 Rustam believes a good writer is born (Pushkin)

Daniyar says they can be developed (Churchill)

Youngsu: good writer is born (Shakespeare)

Ainura: can be developed by reading

Aigerim:  can be developed but writer should have some talent

Conclusion:  good writing can be achieved by working hard, but excellent work is usually done by very talented people.

Our opinions are different.  We have two opposite sides:  One thinks that a person is born a good writer while the others think that a person can become a good writer.  Those who think that a person is born a good writer considers that one person cannot be good at two fields.  Meaning that if he is good a mathematics, he cannot be good at writing.  However, the other group thinks that a person can become a writer developing his skills.

We came to the conclusion that everything depends on the person, we cannot judge everybody in one way.  There are some exceptions as one person could be a good mathematician and a good writer.  Some are born good writers and some become a writer through hard work and time.

Finally, this group had the MOST to write from their discussion group about writing:

Jeon:  I think a good writer is born.  If someone wants to be good at something, t least they have an interest.  

Niyaz: I believe that a good writer is born to be a good writer…actually good writers just do not know about their skills, so in order to be a good writer, they just must develop it.

Galina: I think that a good writer is neither born nor develops his/her skills.  I believe that in order to be a good writer, one has to first be born with a certain talent and then has to work really hard to develop this talent.  There are a lot of “writers” out there but their writing is nothing but some words combined together.  In order to create something really outstanding, one has to involve his/her soul in the process. [YES!!!]

Azamat: I think that everyone can develop into a writer.  Moreover, it should be improved from earlier age, using some games which can improve verbal ability and skills.

Zhuldyz: I absolutely disagree that writers have to be born, because, in our life everything is possible.  If you really want to reach something or to become a better writer, you can do this. You have to think about this, and try to reach this every day.  As Napolean Hill said: “If you will do what you do, you will get what you get.”  You don’t stay in one position.  You are not a tree, if you dislike your position in this life or society, just change and everything will be perfect!!!