regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (07/24/85)
>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. Again, we should have a care of interpolating from the specific (your wife) to the general (_many_ women). Dave at NBI complains that he can't find many "serious" women, and you imply that quite a large number only want a man and a family. There is also the problem of how many MEN really want to work "outside the home" (a possible balancing factor) that might make the claim more valid, had you not left it out. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not really pissed that men (a man in this case, men is a reference to previous postings) should choose to speak for women, but I am occasionally surprised. Makes me wonder what universe some people live in. >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 If she depends on you for her economic survival, what do you call it besides "economically dependent"? And if you are supporting her, what do you call it besides "keeping" her? I agree it's nothing to put her down for -- It's really none of anyone elses business, is it? BUT I'd sure be curious what terms you DO use, if these are somehow unsatisfactory to you. Adrienne Regard (I'm practicing restraint this week. Good job, eh?)