Sender: -2.5 (spamval) -- NONE
Message-ID: <434FE629.8F4ADABB &AElig wayne.edu>
Organization: Wayne State University
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20051013184514.22211.qmail &AElig web81901.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:08:57 -0400
To: "Erica O'Connor" <luca2032 &AElig yahoo.com>, improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Andrew Reeves <andrew.reeves &AElig wayne.edu>
Subject: Re: Masculinism
Status: O

   Thank you for your interesting response. I do not doubt that actual
human personalities are a varying mix of the "masculine principle" (go
out and get the bacon) vs. the "feminine principle" (stay home and tend
the hearth), with nobody 100% one or the other. But these personality
types were named as they are because of their superior biological 
suitability to play these roles, which is also the overwhelming present 
statistical distribution between the genders. I think it's perfectly all 
right if everyone follows his/her own inclinations which every now and 
then might go against the mainstream. I only object to societal 
pressures trying to force people into molds they do not fit into. 
Remember, this whole debate started with a report in the New York Times 
claiming that the trend in elite colleges these days favors stay-home 
moms over professionally active women during the reproductive years. 
Robert Felty suggested that this impression was deliberately created by 
biased choice of the interviewed subjects; Danny felt that it was a 
self-fulfilling prophecy with anti-feminist ulterior motives. Dave 
admitted that the trend may be genuine but he regarded it as an 
undesirable residue of ancient and now obsolete natural inclinations. 
It is only against these ideas that I voiced protest.
   By the way, I must admit shamefacedly that I do not understand 
"vescere bracis meis"! So much for my six years of school Latin.
   DANNY'S GRANDPA ANDREW