Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!dave From: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Universal social programs Message-ID: <272@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 13:56:32 EST Article-I.D.: lsuc.272 Posted: Tue Jan 8 13:56:32 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 14:02:47 EST References:<1299@dciem.UUCP> <907@ubc-cs.UUCP> <4839@utzoo.UUCP> <264@lsuc.UUCP> <4863@utzoo.UUCP> Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 20 In article <4863@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: ||Is it really in our interests to make such horrible marriages in some ||way more tolerable for the mistreated women, or is it preferable to ||make such situations less tolerable? I dunno, Laura. It's hard to explain, but there are many many women whose husbands treat them badly (in various senses of the word), yet who still "love" those husbands and want to stay with them. Why? Financial security? Emotional security? Psychological hangups? Combinations of all of these and more. (Look at the Karen Mitchell (?) case - the woman who was jailed for refusing to testify against the husband who beat her.) Should we be telling these women they're better off splitting? Perhaps. Should we be taking steps to make their lives so miserable that they do leave their husbands? I don't think so. Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave