Gender letter overgeneralizes


I am writing in response to John Palmer's letter in the Oct. 4 edition of the Arizona Daily Wildcat. He asserts that a role model of the same gender (he writes "sex") "is imperative to a child's self-esteem" and that to keep a child from being "confused about his or her own feelings" (about gender and sexuality, presumbably), boys need to have male role models and girls need to have female role models.

This is nonsense. Perhaps he was speaking from personal experience, but if such was the case, he should limit his comments to his experience and keep the generalizations to himself. I cannot speak for everyone and I do not care to generalize, but I can say that John Palmer was not speaking for me. As one of two sons raised by my divorced mother, I had little exposure to a male role model but grew up to be neither confused nor lacking in self-worth.

And I'm sorry John, but my upbringing is not "why family values in this country are fading." The breakup of the traditional nuclear family cannot be pinned on any one thing. If being a supporter of what you call "family values" includes "hilarious," sexist stereotypes like "menstruation is the time of the month when women act bitchy," then I would argue that a new set of family values are in order.

Brett Soulages

English Junior

Read Next Article