ansteorra V1 #43

Nancy Bradford-Reid n.b-reid at
Mon May 22 10:01:58 PDT 1995

We're talking about definitions and economics.  Economics are that not all
members of a "nuclear family" are adults and as such are (probably) not
wage-earners and therefore cannot pay their own way, putting a strain on
the limited budget of the parents (whether it's a traditional, M/F pair, or
M/M or F/F makes no difference).  Once that is established, it makes it
unnecessary to explain to the logical, intelligent mind that other "family"
groups need not be defined.

Catherine Harwell

>>From: litch at (R. Michael Litchfield)
>>Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 16:09:51 -0500
>>Subject: Re[2]: Stepps Warlord
>>That's nice, I'm glad you are not a scum sucking reactionary worm
>>The annocement I read certainly seemed to indicate that they were going to
>>give a benefit to people who fit thier paradigm of a family and I find that
>>paradigm to be overly restrictive and supportive of a mentality I despise.
>If they
>>didn't mean to sound like a bunch of dittohead clowns then they should have
>>used different words.
>What's the appropriate alternative?  I know that this is an area sensitive
>and I don't know the best way to handle it.  What would be a more
>compasionate way to provide financial relief for larger family groups, but
>not offend people of different points of view?

Nan Bradford-Reid
Department of English
The University of Texas
n.b-reid at

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list