Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbneb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!cbscc!cbneb!adm
From: adm@cbneb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: ET sex roles, request for clarificat - (nf)
Message-ID: <800@cbneb.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-May-84 14:22:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbneb.800
Posted: Tue May 15 14:22:41 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 16-May-84 04:47:11 EDT
Sender: adm@cbneb.UUCP
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, OHIO
Lines: 27

#R:bolton:-19100:cbnap:28400001:000:1116
cbnap!cmv    May 15 11:39:00 1984

[ Do not read this blank line message ]

Isn't it that people are different not genders? Isn't it also true that 
generalities about ANY group can be made? So if I was to say that women are
physically weaker than men, I would be making a generality about a group
which may or may not be true about the group, but not about any particular
individual in that group. My point is that valid generalizations CAN be made
about groups (especially from a scientific point of view) because the
characteristics of all the people in that group make up the generalization,
but that has little meaning if you try to apply it to one of the individuals
in the group since their characteristics are dwarfed by the magnitude of the
others that make up the group.

Following all this (if you have to this point) I find it supressive that 
valid studies that come up with generalizations about groups (for whatever
value they may have) are discredited because some people take offense to them.

			For what its worth...

                Craig Votava
                AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus

                ...ihnp4!cbnap!cmv