Sometimes young men set goals to make a lot of money so they can provide for their family and they do not want their wives to have to work, but rather stay home with the kids. The old barefoot and pregnant thing and perhaps not to that degree, but rather a more traditional approach to the family unit. Often this is bothersome to their potential mate, as it disregards their goals and dreams. Of course much of this of this of course is the upbringing from family. Traditional thinking. Personally I admire strong women. Of course I despise all weakness and mediocrity and dishonest people. Working women often say that there is NOTHING wrong with wanting to do things differently than your parents did: who's parents on this planet are perfect? This is indeed a good point. Yet, I have perfect parents actually. Nice folks, they really care. So, I guess that is a bad example for me? Many women will argue that; there is nothing wrong with a woman working when she's got a family at home. I guess it depends, you know kids need a lot. There is a right way and a wrong way to juggle that. I have seen many super awesome kids grow up with working moms. Of course it takes a strong mom to get er' done, but it is doable. If the kids become an obligation rather than a love of life, then issues will develop, resentment, etc. That is not good; kids would sense this of course. I guess a working woman needs to ask herself; So, what have you done in your life that would bring you to the conclusion that you believe you can handle all this? Are you a total go getter? If you appear to be, I respect that and well, Good for you! Many potential mothers say that they; Would absolutely go nuts staying at home in a big house as a house wife. Who can blame that logic, makes sense and this is the other side of the problem, then you would resent kids if you decided to have them and were forced to stay home and thus they would sense this too. Kind of a catch 22 and it is important for couples to discuss these thoughts before getting too involved you see? Consider this in 2006. |
