as for me...

In going through some old copies of ONE the other day, I was rather appalled by Miss Robin's article"Why do they persecute us so" (Sept., 1958) for the concession that she makes to the ignorance and prejudice of our times. At the most, her views have a "practical" value-but practical for what? Well aware that I am, how it is "impractical" to be a Jew at a time of inquisition, or a Negro in a white world. But this is missing the point. The real villain is hatred and intolerance, and that is something to be faced by other means than her quiet evasion. However, there are some points I wish to bring up in challenge to her view.

1. As a biologist and social scientist, I recognize "male and female" only as terms defining anatomy, and having nothing to do with conventions and fashions of our culture. A little history and anthropology can show one this in remembrance of times when men wore lace and powdered hair, or in knowing of cultures when the "women wore the pants." Ideals of "sex-character" ephemeral and artificial as the women's dress designs.

are as

2. There is no such thing as a "completely masculine man" or an "utterly feminine woman." That is a biological fact! A few of us veer towards that extreme, and a few are towards the middle of the spectrum, whereas the majority of men and women display quite a mixture of "masculine" and "feminine" qualities. Moreover, a social order that demands a rigid dichotamization of the sexes is denying the reality of individual character.

3. Contrary to some views, there is dignity and responsibility in all kinds of work. And Miss Robin's

one

white collar snobbery towards manual labor is quite uncalled for. After all, not all women care for office worksome of us do prefer to be machinists, bus-drivers, or chemists. Why not? During the war, women performed nobly and efficiently in the war-plants, and everywhere your "accursed masculine women" are proving themselves in the men's professions of science and medicine. And I say, better that a girl be a happy top-notch machinist than a discontented office clerk.

4. Finally, I most emphatically challenge the author's moral blindness on the issue of persecution. Laws and ethics should be for the protection of society from injury, and for safe-guarding of individual happiness. An immoral act is one that harms a person, or causes great unhappiness. So here's the rub: an individual "eccentricity" has never harmed anyone in any way, whereas persecution has sown acres of sorrow. The great immoralities of our time are hatred, intolerance, and prejudice --and these must be stamped out!

A long time ago, there was religious persecution, until men either sickened of it, or started to think. So now we have a better world where Jew and gentile, Catholic and Protestant can live peacefully side by side. Would it be asking too much for an ethics of kindness, and tolerance, and appreciation towards sexual diversity, instead of blind acceptance of a restricting conformity? Conformity is not maturity any more than a clipped hedge represents a full-grown tree. Better that we plan (by education and legislation) for a free, friendly, "live and let live society" where each can grow the full spontaneous growth according to one's own special nature. -Barbara Stephens