Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site hammer.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!hammer!seifert From: seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) Newsgroups: net.women,net.social Subject: Re: "pleasant" work vs. "dangerous" work Message-ID: <1375@hammer.UUCP> Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 01:27:25 EDT Article-I.D.: hammer.1375 Posted: Thu Jul 18 01:27:25 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 11:50:20 EDT References: <826@oddjob.UUCP> <309@kontron.UUCP> <688@lll-crg.ARPA> Reply-To: seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm Lines: 20 Xref: watmath net.women:6361 net.social:818 Summary: really the definition of "single" In article <688@lll-crg.ARPA> muffy@lll-crg.UUCP (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >In article <309@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >> 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 >> > >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? Not a contradiction, just a problem with the language. "Single" is normally taken to mean "never married", but some people include "divorced" in with "single". Then there's "seperated", "widow(er)", and probably a couple of other catagories. Snoopy tektronix!hammer!seifert