Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site madvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!varian!madvax!susan
From: susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: "Traditional Values"
Message-ID: <347@madvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 13:59:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: madvax.347
Posted: Tue Oct 15 13:59:56 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Oct-85 05:07:44 EDT
References: <274@fear.UUCP> <5798@tektronix.UUCP> <801@masscomp.UUCP>
Organization: Varian, Walnut Creek, CA
Lines: 19

> Besides not generally being able to support herself,
> another reason for women to stay married was that she
> would probably loose her children if she didn't.  The
> custody of children was routinely given to the father,
> not the mother.  I'm not sure when this changed.  Does
> anyone know?
> 
> Miche Baker-Harvey
> 	{ihnp4|decvax}!masscomp!miche

I think it was in the 1920's & 1930's when the notion of the importance
of the mother to a young child was coming into intellectual fashion.  I
know that the notion of mother's pensions (ie. the welfare system which
evolved into our current AFDC) also had it's roots then.  The swing
from almost universal paternal custody of children after a divorce
to almost universal maternal custody was very rapid in cultural terms.

  Susan Finkelman
	{zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susan