>
>matt, in my eyes, was very disturbing when he wrote:
>
><< So come on somebody, suggest that two mothers would be that
>most ideal
>parental scenario, following that line of logic. >>
Jessyka,
Reading the script from Matt, I am sure what he meant was that someone would try and argue this point from previous things he said. He then stated that he would then argue strongly against them
>it also stems from the dream that, in
>this society,
>my husband will have a well paying job, enough so that i won't
>*have* to
>work, but that i can if i want to.
>
I'm really glad that you put quotes around 'have' to. From what I see of those around me (and granted I am in a very white collar profession) no one and I mean NO ONE I know HAS to have both husband and wife work to survive. They all choose to do so. The guy who sits right next to me and his wife both work at the same company, both have been here for about 10 years and together are way over the 6 figure threshold. They just had their first child, 6 weeks later in day care so they can start in the spring building a huge house 5 bedrooms "for their daughter". Like hello, how about spending time with your daughter.
I know, before the flame throwers ignite, that some people may need to have two incomes just to pay bills etc. What I am talking about is the majority who use the two incomes for a big house two (or more) new cars etc.
>as far as the male being the head of the household, i think that major
>decisions need to be made within the boundaries of compromise.
> i don't care
>how much money the man makes and how little the woman
>makes...if he wants to
>buy a little red sports car instead of a practical car that
>would actually be
>useful when transporting his family, i think the woman should
>have the power
>to veto that idea.
>
It really isn't a money issue. And it certainly isn't about buying sports cars. That is just plain immaturity (on the part of the hypothetical husband not you). I am talking about two rational adults making rational decisions.
Michael