Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!intelca!qantel!dual!lll-crg!muffy
From: muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.social
Subject: Re: "pleasant" work vs. "dangerous" work
Message-ID: <688@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 04:23:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.688
Posted: Wed Jul 10 04:23:18 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 11:31:43 EDT
References: <826@oddjob.UUCP> <309@kontron.UUCP>
Reply-To: muffy@lll-crg.UUCP (Muffy Barkocy)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group
Lines: 29
Xref: watmath net.women:6359 net.social:816
Summary: 

In article <309@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Also, until very recently, divorced fathers seldom were given custody of
>the kids (I'm not sure that they usually wanted them, either).  This is
>why men ended up primary breadwinner jobs.  (Also, a lot of employers
>perceived that the man's job was essential to put bread on the table, and
>a woman's job was not.  The reasoning was that a single woman didn't have
>kids to support (largely true, until the last few years), and a married
>woman was supported by her husband (largely untrue, but a lot of people
>believed it because they wanted things to be this way).  Employers
>were excessively concerned with "social good" in this respect.)
>

I note a major contradiction here.  1) Divorced fathers were not given
custody.  This implies that divorced *mothers* were.  We now have a single
(divorced) woman with children to take care of, which conflicts with 2) a
single woman would not have kids to support.  Explain, please?

>   boxes>
>
>It could be the way you are describing it, or it could be well-intentioned
>but ignorant efforts to protect a "girl" from "awful work".  A little 
>education would have gone a long way.
>

What is so "awful" about lifting things?  If the person is capable, let them.

                                    Muffy