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,net.women Subject: Re: opportunits, women Message-ID: <710@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 22:56:06 EDT Article-I.D.: lsuc.710 Posted: Mon Jul 15 22:56:06 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 16-Jul-85 03:44:47 EDT References: <2159@watcgl.UUCP> Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) Distribution: na Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 22 Summary: don't make assumptions about ALL women In article <2159@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: || || Personally I think that everyone || should be paid enough to live a decent life themselves || but to set salaries so that one half of the population || can "keep" the other half is ridiculous and then to pay || minimal (or nothing) to the other half so that they || are economically dependent is ridiculous in the extreme. || (not to mention insulting, unfair etc etc). I agree that every woman who wants to have a career should be entitled to. But we're never going to see complete statistical equality, for the simple reason that many women do not want to work outside the home. That's nothing to put them down for, of course, and it also doesn't mean they're "economically dependent". The fact that my income is sufficient to support our family hardly means that I am "keeping" my better half. Dave Sherman -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave