From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: Stereotyping human beings (was Re: Jesus and opinion polls)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:39:17 GMT

    Dear Brian, I will not get into an extended discussion with
you on the subject of gender, as there is no point. But I will
make a couple of responses to what you have said. You ask 
why anyone should want to treat someone better or worse because
of gender. Now, I did not say 'better' or 'worse', at most what
I said was 'different'. Since you are obviously intelligent, I
cannot imagine that theis distinction is lost on you. So you
must be setting up straw men in order to have the fun of knocking
them down. An amusing pastime, but not conducive to genuine 
dialogue. I would not claim that there is a personality trait
that is present in one gender and lacking in the other. I would
not claim there are notes that Tchaikowski used that Mozart did
not, but they are distinguishable. I would not claim that there
are personality traits, for that matter, that a child has that
are lacking in adults, or vice versa. (Note for simpletons: I 
am in no way suggesting that the difference between the sexes is
of the same kind as that between different levels of maturation!!
I am pointing out that patterns of behavior or personality may
be distinguishable without being so disjoint as Mr. Tillman suggests.)
I did not contrast two-parent families with one-parent families.
I contrasted two-parent-of opposite-sex families with two-'parent'-
of-same-sex families. If the sexual difference is negligible except
for the actual bearing of children, then the two environments
should be equally desirable and natural. That is, there would
be no reason why homosexuals should not adopt children. I would,
however, also say that it is better ceterus paribus for a child
to have two parents of the opposite sex than one parent of either
sex. Count me with Quayle on this one. 
    Of course every person's individuality should be respected.
I did not say otherwise. I am not such a nominalist as you, 
however, appear to be. I believe that a person's gender is important
in who he or she is. I also believe that gender is not merely
a statistical catagory. It is not merely a set of attributes that
are more commonly to be found in one group than the other. There
is a normative aspect as well, in my view. Males wish to be
more manly, females aspire to be womanly. It is a role to which
one tries to fit oneself, as much as a set of attributes which
one more or less shares. Men seek something in women, women 
something in men. While the catagories of 'masculine' and
'feminine' are plastic to some extent, I do not believe that
they are totally culturally determined. Of course you disagree
with my views on gender. We are probably neither of us too
bothered by this disagreement! However, one thing that is 
bothersome, and that we should eschew, is to simplify the views
of the other person to make easier targets of them. Note, the
views on gender that I listed were not attributed to a particular
person, they were as it were a composite portrait of the extreme
feminist views on the subject, and I believe are as that very
accuRATe. Steve.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU