Sir, - I resisted the impulse to reply to John Waters's article on the innate preferences of men and women, but I cannot let Mary T. Cleary's reiteration (February 23rd) of his opinions pass without comment.
I am happy to concede with most observers and researchers that young human males, almost from the cradle, are strong, competitive, aggressive and acquisitive, traits which ought, within reason, to fit them for the role of leader, provider and defender. The group play of young human females shows tendencies towards co-operation, organisation and nurturing, apparently indicating, again within reason, fitness for the role of home-making and child rearing. However, not all males and females exhibit these various preferences to the same degree, and there are many overlaps and exceptions.
As a result, while many women find complete fulfilment in the family, others choose to work outside the home, and can now do so more easily than heretofore. Men too are learning to leave behind older norms and allow themselves to find a role and fulfilment within the family. On the other hand, carried to extremes, the so-called innate characteristics of male and female can produce monstrous caricatures who wreak havoc in their homes and communities.
But reliability, duty and hard work? In the dim and distant 1940s and 1950s, I was brought up to believe that these were indeed virtues, not innate, but to be achieved by good example in the home and instruction in school and church. They were and are attainments to be sought after, and are within reach of both men and women of every class and creed who aspire to them. There was a time when these virtues were believed to belong only to the upper classes, the peasantry being considered lazy and feckless, but I am not aware that they were ever attributed solely to men. - Yours, etc.,
Dr E. Caroline Mhic Daeid, Moynalty, Kells, Co. Meath.