Greetings Economists,
I agree with what Mine raises about the sexist point of view that Sam
Pawlett put forward as his view of human reproduction. Sam had made that
remark in the context of discussing essentialism, and I would just add to
what Mine wrote that, Sam's remarks show how an essentialist view of human
sex fails to account for the reality of human social relations.
An essential description from Sam's point of view, would be that without
some property P something is no longer essential. In this case penetration
of the woman to have human reproduction is essential as a conception for
Sam. Essentialism cannot take into account how sex between two people has
no essential to it, but is plastic and changeable, and mutual when not one
sided as Sam thinks it ought to be thought of. Sexism flows out of exactly
making one part of the act essential in some aspect. Sam may not make love
as he thinks it ought to be theoretically understood of course, one more
contradiction to resolve.
One of many times where essence fails to help us understand even the
most prosaic of human activities. Which is why in current research the
classical point of view is in trouble explaining human minds.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
