Sir, - In his letter of February 17th, Kevin Donegan accuses John Waters of "attempting to limit life and career choices for women by asserting that certain preferences are innate"; and he goes on to say that by doing so Mr Waters "continues the social oppression of women that we all hope to soon consign to history". In stating that certain preferences are innate John Waters is simply acknowledging a natural fact and in doing so is honouring the equal dignity of both men and women and masculinity and femininity. Accepting the obvious reality that certain masculine and certain feminine preferences are innate and natural does not limit life and career choices for women (or men) and does not "continue the social oppression of women" (or men). In denying that certain masculine traits are more natural for men and certain feminine traits are more natural for women, are the social constructionists motivated by a belief that femininity is somehow inferior to masculinity? If so, they are, in fact, denigrating femininity, and consequently women. Equality will not be achieved by denying truth, but instead by accepting the different nature of men and women and valuing equally the unique, positive and natural virtues of masculinity and femininity. The phrase "valuing diversity" is very much in vogue at present. You do not value diversity by denying its existence or attempting to eradicate it. This applies equally to the natural diversity between men and women. Vive la difference! The ridiculous, and at this stage discredited, theory that masculinity (and femininity?) are entirely socially constructed is a nonsensical insult to our innate intelligence, regardless of how attractive it may be to certain would-be social engineers. Continuing to propound this nonsense will hinder efforts to achieve true equality and mutual respect between men and women.
In another letter (February 15th), Prof Harry Ferguson of UCD also criticises John Waters. Prof Ferguson appears to have a problem with "masculine virtues such as reliability, duty and hard work". Surely these virtues should be celebrated rather than denigrated. As regards his remark about his eight-month-old daughter tearing up certain parts of The Irish Times, does he not realise that tearing up paper is a natural activity for a child of that age? Of course she may be a child prodigy who is simply displaying her excitement at the content of Monday's opinion column. - Yours, etc., sincerely
Mary T. Cleary, National Coordinator, Amen, Brew's Hill, Navan, Co Meath.