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