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