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