Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lasspvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!lasspvax!cheryl From: cheryl@lasspvax.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: "Traditional Values" Message-ID: <626@lasspvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 25-Oct-85 17:38:47 EDT Article-I.D.: lasspvax.626 Posted: Fri Oct 25 17:38:47 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 20:01:41 EDT References: <274@fear.UUCP> <5798@tektronix.UUCP> <2722@ihuxf.UUCP> <664@ccice2.UUCP> Reply-To: cheryl@lasspvax.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) Organization: LASSP, Cornell University Lines: 28 Summary: In article <664@ccice2.UUCP> pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) writes: >In article <2722@ihuxf.UUCP> features@ihuxf.UUCP (aMAZon) writes: > >> You're absolutely right about most marriages being based >>on economic grounds. A daughter was looked upon as another >>commodity, like a cow or a goat. > >Are you trying to say that in the past people did not love their >child unless it was male? Or are you trying to say that in the >past people loved their cows and goats. :-) In the past, many people KILLED their child unless it was male. I'm not talking about 19th century amerikka, I'm talking about more primitive cultures. The history of infanticide shows that it was limited to a) female infants b) stepchildren and bastards >Let's just say that in the past people often unfairly valued >male children more then female. But we'll change that. :-) > Understated, but reasonable. Cheryl Stewart