Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: can.politics,net.women
Subject: Re: opportunits, women
Message-ID: <2229@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 11:13:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2229
Posted: Thu Jul 18 11:13:07 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Jul-85 01:03:01 EDT
References: <2159@watcgl.UUCP> <710@lsuc.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 29
Xref: watmath can.politics:684 net.women:6469

.
.
.
> || but to set salaries so that one half of the population
> || can "keep" the other half is ridiculous and then to pay
.
.
.
> 
> 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

 But if the majority of mens wages are higher than womens
 based on the premise of men supporting women it is unfair.
 Better to recognize the value of homemakers economically
 and base peoples wages on what is necessary to support
 themselves (pie in the sky I know). 

 John Chapman
 
> {  ihnp4!utzoo  pesnta  utcs  hcr  decvax!utcsri  }  !lsuc!dave