Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxe.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow From: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: RE:deaf eyes Message-ID: <860@ihuxe.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Sep-84 13:57:26 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxe.860 Posted: Fri Sep 21 13:57:26 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 21:26:27 EDT Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 29 >You certainly did not "clearly state numerous times that this is only true >for a small minority". Your statement was that "this behavior is common >enough...". I read it the same way Chuck Bowden did. Nowhere did you >mention the care and feeding of children, so I assume your description of >this COMMMON housewife does not include these tasks. And yet, it was the >response to a woman who has chosen to not work OUTSIDE THE HOME while her >children were young that precipitated the discussion. Well, since there is obvious confusion, I hope I have cleared up my actual views. Its not easy when you mean one thing by using a certain terminology and someone else takes it differently. Funny how no one bothered to ask. To me, to say something is common enough is to say there are a few counter- examples. And I do believe in this case that there are. Common enough means something which isn't rare. And I never claimed my example is a description of a common housewife. Your assumption is wrong. I described two people who I know who claim to be housewives. You extrapolate at your own risk. >You didn't describe a housewife. You described a princess. I love your analogy. You hit it right on the nose. Robert