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