« Is Self Esteem Just Sex Appeal? |
| Post-Halloween Reflections »
Thoughts on the eternal question, prompted by a high school girl.
Posted at 07:43 AM in Wendy Shalit | Permalink
| | Digg This
| Save to del.icio.us
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ebe569e200e54f13e0ad8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Where/How Do You Find a Good Man?":
There are PLENTY of good men out there... ARMIES of them I would say. The real issue is that our female dominated culture castrated them. Masculinity was portrayed in a negative light for so long that most males under 50-ish have no conception of masculinity except as 'laddish' behavior.
Men were told that their masculine-energy (I'm using a metaphor here) was bad, so the good-men gave up their power. Thus you have the result of today: the only males left are thugs and wimps.
Thirty years ago, when women told men they had to change the men agreed and changed for them. The problem was women then, as now... as ever, don't understand the male psyche and thus didn't understand what they were asking for.
The good men have gone away because women told them to leave.
Luthor Rex |
October 29, 2007 at 12:21 AM
The above comment does not make sense. "There are armies of good men out there," but yet they've all gone away and only "thugs and wimps" are left over because it's women's fault? Which is it, are there good men or aren't there?
Ruthor Lex |
October 29, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Sounds like that guy Robert Bly...has anyone heard of him? I'm sure you have...
He suggested that men needed to reconnect with being men again and this meant reclaiming their 'masculine energy' by beating drums in the jungle and getting into fights. All of this happened as Luthor Rex says, about 30 years ago during the 'sexual revolution'. The personal became political, second-wave feminists wanted to talk about experiences and what it actually felt like being a woman or a man. And men, of course, freaked out at the idea that the dominant gender would be demystified in this fashion. So people like Robert Bly showed up to 're-mystify it.".
'Female-dominated culture', Luthor? I would say culture today is more misogynistic than it ever has been. Seen MTV or a teen movie lately? When 50 Cent and his Candy Shop (which is actually a harem) are ideals for young men today, I would hardly call our culture female-dominated.
Bottom-line is...once men give up this mysterious concept of power, be it sexual, violent, corporate, whatever, they will truly become good men. The only Person who has true power is God and we human beings should be humble, regardless of gender.
I've almost broken up with my fiance of 2 1/2 years. So a clear answer to the question as to where to find a good man, giving places, times, names, dates would be much appreciated.
I guess for me, after going through this painful break-up (still going through it), I found myself redefining my priorities. I found out that my fiance is a "selectively" Muslim person, in that he is only Muslim because our culture is Muslim and cultural practices often do not cover all and may even discourage some important Muslim practices, such as wearing headscarves or praying at work.
So, unless I patch things up, I think I'll be looking for love at religious organisations like mosques or Islamic schools.
So my advice would be...figure out your priorities. If you want a smart guy, look at university or the library. If you want a caring guy, maybe at a volunteer organisation like Human Appeal or Greenpeace. Etc, etc.
And above all, be patient! God works in mysterious ways. You might just meet Mr. Right at the check-out line at the supermarket.
What do you guys think? Sorry for the long post.
October 29, 2007 at 05:29 PM
I know that there are plenty of good men out there. I haven't ever been seriously looking for a man and bemoaning the lack of quality in the selection. I lived and am living my life the way I want to and in the process met a great guy.
My best friend, on the other hand, has constantly been searching for Mr. Right and has a tendency to decide that a guy is "the one" after she's known him for about five minutes. She also goes out to bars with her girlfriends for girls nights and then she wonders why she don't meet quality guys. Good guys aren't at bars and if they are, they're not looking to hook up and then turn it into a long term relationship. Good guys are getting up early (not hung over), going to work, class, the gym, religious services, doing the things I think a good guy would do.
October 30, 2007 at 08:05 AM
Precisely, Sarah. Fortunately, I am doing my part raising four young men who know how to respect women and care for children. Sorry, though, they are probably too young for most of you, except maybe the oldest (almost 23) Where would a girl find them? At school, at church, at Scouts, at choir practice, at sports events (as participants, not spectators,) at bookstores, and, finally, at home with their family. You won't find them at bars, strip clubs, or cruising the mall.
October 30, 2007 at 10:43 AM
I found this comment from Sabina interesting.
"Female-dominated culture', Luthor? I would say culture today is more misogynistic than it ever has been."
What I like about this is Sabina's tacit admission that feminism has been a failure. Years of marches and protests and lawsuits and demanding socail change by feminists have left as with a society that, as Sabina says, is "more misogynistic than it ever has been."
It's nice to see someone admit the feminist project has backfired.
October 30, 2007 at 10:45 AM
i think we need to look at the definition of "feminism". when hugh hefner claims to have been the ultimate feminist and the arbiter of the sexual revolution, i think thats what sabina is looking to. but equality under the law, im all for.
October 30, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Umm I didn't mean to say that the ENTIRE feminist project backfired. I admit I don't know all that much about second-wave feminism. If I'm not mistaken, the movement started the sexual revolution, which gave women 'freedom of choice'. This valorised the act of sex itself without factoring in love. It seems (from my limited knowledge) that feminists thought love was somehow oppressive and a patriarchal construct, when in my opinion, it's quite simply a basic human need like food or shelter. But then I'm a romantic :-)
Also I think these women were for equality in the workplace and in domestic relations and for demystifying the male gender. Which in my opinion are fantastic things. Which unfortunately have not been achieved, according to statistics.
Why I think today's culture is more misogynistic than it ever was in the 50's and 60's is because of the new movement of post-feminists a.k.a skanks, exemplified by Camille Paglia and others.
These women believe that women don't need to be liberated in the workplace, university etc, anymore, that we've affectively all been liberated and now is the time to embrace our sexuality as the most liberating aspect of our lives. And this gives rise to wonderful pop-culture phenomena like Britney Spears and PussyCat Dolls.
Take a look at this review of what looks like a shocking book 'The Morning After'. http://www.interactivetheatre.org/resc/notbadsex.html
Sexist comments are apparently healthy sexual banter according to Kate Roiphe.
Postfeminists seem to completely deny the existence of working-class women, women from minorities and the Third World. And ignoring your sister in pain to dance around a pole in your undies...if that isn't misogyny, I don't know what is.
What I think is really missing among today's men is plain old-fashioned capacity to love. To get back to Luthor's comment, love I think is about a renunciation of power, about vulnerability, about complete and utter trust...by both genders. So that's what's missing in today's world I think.
October 31, 2007 at 07:48 AM
Just because the feminist movement occurred, and misogyny exists, doesn't mean that one caused the other. Do we blame the Civil Rights Movement for racism? Then again, the Civil Rights Movement also didn't get co-opted by people who thought that marginalized races should empower themselves through shopping and learning how to give lap dances...
October 31, 2007 at 09:27 AM
>"There are armies of good men out there," >but yet they've all gone away and only >"thugs and wimps" are left over because >it's women's fault? Which is it, are there >good men or aren't there?
I'm saying they exist but have departed from the social mainstream.
>Sounds like that guy Robert Bly...has >anyone heard of him? I'm sure you have...
I have and I don't like him because he's too anti-intellectual for me. I prefer Shakespeare, and Epictetus.
>He suggested that men needed to reconnect >with being men again and this meant >reclaiming their 'masculine energy' by >beating drums in the jungle and getting >into fights... second-wave feminists >wanted to talk about experiences and what >it actually felt like being a woman or a >man. And men, of course, freaked out at >the idea that the dominant gender would be >demystified in this fashion.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I said that masculinity has only been portrayed in a negative light. The only way most women can deal with masculinity is by castrating it. This is in large part, I think, because they don't understand it and thus they fear it.
No one can win against Mother Nature (or God if you prefer), and Nature gave us all a human nature that is driving us. If you believe in being 'fruitful and multiply' or you believe in the Darwinian struggle the results are the same: our natures are driving us and our will is not free but rather is subordinated to some 'higher' power.
Instead of making fun of natural male aggression that was given to us by Nature (or God if you prefer) it would be better to temper and direct male aggression in a constructive manner to build courage and accomplish difficult tasks.
Humiliating natural male drives has made too many men ashamed of being male. Most males under 40 have experienced what I'm talking about. This is what I meant when I said that women told the good men to leave. Women couldn't distinguish between the good and bad qualities in a man and thus told generations of males to suppress *all* masculine traits. Little boys should be taught to see their natural drives in a positive light.
The etymology of the word virtue is that it literally means 'manliness'. Courage, Wisdom, Temperance and Justice are all qualities that have been subverted because manliness was humiliated. We now live in the product of that culture... ugh
>Seen MTV or a teen movie lately? When 50 >Cent and his Candy Shop (which is actually >a harem) are ideals for young men today, I >would hardly call our culture >female-dominated.
Mary Winkler blew her husband's head off with a shotgun while he sat on the toilet. She got 90-ish days in a prison / mental ward.
An NFL player killed a dog and he's looking at being banned from the sport for life as well as serious prison time.
Murder a man and you get 90 days. Kill a dog and you get massive social criticism and stare down the barrel of serious prison time. So yeah, I'd say we were female-dominated.
>"Female-dominated culture', Luthor? I >would say culture today is more >misogynistic than it ever has been."
I'm glad you said that. It is women who are most concerned with image and relationships and right now that's what the dominant culture is shoving down our throats. Women brought anorexia on themselves, men didn't do it to them. The facts are that men prefer fatter women than women do: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75DB-4C6TGT2-3&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8438bf2df0cef67c3b6b407a9ee94579
"This research shows that men are accurate in their perceptions of what women find attractive among men, but women believe men want women to be thinner than men actually report. Furthermore, this inaccurate perception is associated with eating disorder symptomatology."
Feminists had the chance to re-make the world, and as many before them they dropped the ball.
What the feminist critique of society, and you, missed is that *both* genders have been confined to certain pre-determined roles through history.
Women may have been pushed off to the kitchen (metaphorically and literally), but men have been confined to the battlefield. It has only been the very few who sat at the top of societies, like kings and ceasers, who were able to live lives of privilege and power. Most men were confined to hard labor and slave-armies formed through 'the draft'.
Western society hasn't been all anti-female or all anti-male. It has been anti-individual.
>This valorised the act of sex itself >without factoring in love.
Yeah, this is a bunch of crap. If sex were really just about sex then masturbation would be fine. Otherwise, sex is never just about sex. I can be about love, or sport, or power, or ego, or relaxation etc. Recognizing this we then have to make value judgments about when it's a good idea and when it's not.
There are a lot of people who have a deeply vested political interest in thinking that modern sexual mores has no relationship to the decline of marriage or unhappiness between the genders. In the way that one's sexual morality is a symptom of your deeper values I might agree with this. But the intuitive belief that 'sexual liberation' and a screwed up culture have something to do with one another isn't unfounded.
If I have the values of a teenage boy who's out for the next big thrill, then of course I'm not going to think of women as people. It's too bad the modern role-models for women have decided to emulate teenage boys.
>Also I think these women were for equality >in the workplace and in domestic relations >and for demystifying the male gender. >Which in my opinion are fantastic things. >Which unfortunately have not been >achieved, according to statistics.
Equality is actually a very poor catch-all word that's thrown around too much. Treating everyone the same isn't a good idea at all: I wouldn't expect someone with a disorder such as Down's Syndrome or autism to be held to the same level of accountability as someone else. Treating them with human dignity is still something I think most people would agree on.
Just because Jefferson was wrong and we all weren't created equal doesn't mean we don't have living examples of how we can treat those who are different with dignity.
Also, he pay gap is actually a myth: http://reason.com/news/show/119920.html
"Buried in the report is a startling admission: "After accounting for all factors known to affect wages, about one-quarter of the gap remains unexplained and *may* be attributed to discrimination" (my emphasis). Another way to put it is that three-quarters of the gap clearly has innocent causes -- and that we actually don't know whether discrimination accounts for the rest."
>To get back to Luthor's comment, love I >think is about a renunciation of power, >about vulnerability, about complete and >utter trust...by both genders. So that's >what's missing in today's world I think.
I agree that the genders don't trust one another. Also, love is a very dangerous thing because as you pointed out for most people it makes them surrender power. Lack of trust between the genders means that people will be more concerned with losing power than being in loving healthy relationships. I don't think you have to surrender power when you love someone; what I mean is I don't think love *must* be blind. You can love someone and still see them for the nail-biting, nose picking, bad speller that they are.
I don't think Camille Paglia likes Britteny very much:
"On how it's affecting feminism:
"These girls are lowering themselves to the level of backstreet floozies. It angers me because I fought a bitter fight to get feminism back on track and be pro-sex at the same time. This is degrading the entire pro-sex wing of feminism."
On how it's affecting their reputation:
"I am completely appalled by what these young women are doing because I think that they are cheapening their own image and obliterating all sexual mystery and glamour, which are the heart of the star system.""
Luthor Rex |
November 01, 2007 at 12:04 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the movement started the sexual revolution, which gave women 'freedom of choice'. This valorised the act of sex itself without factoring in love. It seems (from my limited knowledge) that feminists thought love was somehow oppressive and a patriarchal construct, when in my opinion, it's quite simply a basic human need like food or shelter.
Not to be rude, but I think you are mistaken. There are several groups of people with very different agendas involved here:
* Reproductive health advocates like Margaret Sanger who made birth control less taboo and more widely available. Thanks to these people, it's possible for women not to risk getting pregnant every time we have sex.
* Feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon (sometimes called "second-wave" who advocated against things like misogynist pornography, spousal rape, and sexual harassment. Thanks to these people, it is illegal for your husband to rape you or your boss to harass you. Unfortunately, second-wave feminists absorbed some anti-sex messages from the larger culture.
* Sex-positive feminists and queer activists like Patrick Califa, Annie Sprinkle, and Susie Bright, who emphasized the value of sex and sexual pleasure (particularly women's sexual pleasure). Thanks to these people, you can get decent erotica that respects women's dignity. (I'm not sure if readers of this blog are in favor of women thinking about how to sex and how to enjoy it. But if you think sexual enjoyment is bad, please confine your opinions so that they only affect your sex life, not mine.)
* Sensible people who point out that romance, while all very fine and good in and of itself, can be used as a bad justification for stupid crap. (I actually have trouble singling out a particular group of feminists here--I think it's too commonly held of a view.) For an example of romance being used to justify stupid crap, see Luthor Rex's dubious suggestion that women's gains in political power are somehow emasculating to men. I don't want romance used as an excuse to take away my political and reproductive rights, thanks very much.
* Poseurs like Hugh Hefner, Katie Roiphe, and Camille Paglia, who for some reason get labeled "feminist" in the popular imagination, but who wouldn't know feminism if it bit them on the nose. These people tend not to say anything of substance.
* Various people who run around proclaiming loudly that feminism is dead, without knowing what they're talking about. Some overlap with the previous group.
November 01, 2007 at 12:27 AM
The only way most women can deal with masculinity is by castrating it. This is in large part, I think, because they don't understand it and thus they fear it. -- Luthor Rex
Then why does a "Slap Dem Hos Around" abusive creep cause an automatic "OOOOOO! MY SOULMATE! HE'S SO (GASP) EXCITING!" reaction in them? (Especially when the abuser is dynamite in the sack...) Someone put it this way:
Responsible + steady income + respectful of her = "YAWN!"
Crack/meth/booze habit + no job in living memory + mooching off all his parade of shtups + dozen kids (one or two per each shtup) = "OOOOOO! MY SOULMATE!"
Women do NOT want "Good men". They want the "Bad Boys", the badder the better.
"You say you want a man who's DANGEROUS. In a year or two we'll be seeing you on an episode of COPS, leaning out of your trailer in your tube-top, shrieking "YOU LOCK HIS ASS UP! YOU LOCK HIS ASS UP!"
-- Jeff Foxworthy (from memory)
November 01, 2007 at 01:24 PM
Rousing and fascinating discussion folks-- but did we scare off that poor girl who was just looking for a nice boy to date?
November 01, 2007 at 05:25 PM
you find a good man by being a good woman;
speak, dress, act feminine and and real man will find you
November 11, 2007 at 12:09 AM
I agree with the person who posted above me. I'm trying to do all of those things, but I haven't gotten a man yet. But I'm sure I will.
It does seem like there are women who enjoy being messed with, even though they say they want a good man. I have never been "messed with" by being with an abusive guy--I've never actually had a boyfriend. But there have been some guys I've let mess with my head because I was so hung up on them. I recently recognized this and have made the conscious decision not to let that happen ever again.
The best thing to do is keep trying to be the best you can possibly be and have faith. And don't sit on your fanny waiting for him; go out and enjoy life. Just remember to do it in a wholesome way, because wholesome activities attract wholesome people.
November 11, 2007 at 01:06 PM
As a guy I find it frustrating that there are so few feminine women out there who cherish their inner beauty. I would like to think that I am one of the good men out there, however most of the women I see out there, dress like a whore, sleep around, have no class and put their career over their family. I find it frustrating, but thank God there women like you who realise they need to speak out against the false images that women have looked upto of what it means to be fulfilled and what good men are looking for in the opposite sex. Good men are out there, but if women dont embody a 'beauty to be rescued or a damsel in distress', how can us men feel like our masculine strength is of any use to you? I have lost count at the amount of times when women have snarled at me, for me simply opening a door for them. Women need to wake up!
November 11, 2007 at 01:14 PM
I disagree with James. While it is true that women shouldn't take courtesy as a derogatory action, they don't need to be in distress to be attractive. Good women are strong, and can handle situations on their own. On the other hand, a good man will want to spare her a lot of the crap that has to be dealt with, not because she CAN'T, but because it's no fun and men seem to have not more ability, but we have a DRIVE to win conflicts. It would be nice if women let us fight some battles for them just because it makes us feel good. And before you say "Why should everything be about making MEN feel good", I have to ask, don't good men want to do things to make women feel good? I've known a lot of women who don't seem to believe in reciprocation. And if the man wants anything the woman doesn't want they freak out.
November 20, 2007 at 02:45 PM
>Instead of making fun of natural male aggression that was given to us by Nature (or God if you prefer) it would be better to temper and direct male aggression in a constructive manner to build courage and accomplish difficult tasks.>
I agree. How is this done?
Really, what we women want is a man who is a good man and also a masculine man. Say, a man who is an upstanding citizen, who has the masculine courage to approach a woman and court her in a respectful way, who is agressive in the pursuit of his career as well as his side interests, who is protective of the woman he dates and the women in his family.
What confuses a lot of women is that the bad guys are much better salesmen. They tend to build the muscular chest, broad shoulders and sixpack that scream healthy masculinity, They wear nice clothes and have good haircuts, fresh breath, cologne etc. A lot of bad guys have interests they are passionate about; some could play in a band, others travel a lot, having adventures to tell is also alluring to women. They approach tons and tons of women, so even if 90% of them say no, they still get one. Then they lie about their job, marital status and criminal record. They get with women who are easy, who sleep with these men before they discover these men are bad. Most of those women have mental problems to some extent.
Good guys who look good and are charming, who display their masculinity and use humor are just as popular with women as the bad guy, if not more, plus they will be dating a better calibre of women, who have the feminine restraint and self esteem to avoid being seduced by bad guys.
November 21, 2007 at 06:59 PM
John with respect I think you missed my point and are making a caricature out of it. My point was that unfeminine women who focus soley on their career want to protray themselves as self-sufficent to the world, however basic male psychology gives credence to the fact that men tend to go for women who they feel they have something to offer too.
Btw, 'forever', I agree with your point about 'bad guys', I recall when I went through a bad guy phase when I was younger, I was able to date some incredibly beautiful women on the outside, however for all their great bodies etc, they were ugly women inside. Real men especially if they want to settle down want a feminine women with real inner beauty, not a whore.
November 26, 2007 at 10:06 PM
James wrote: "I would like to think that I am one of the good men out there, however most of the women I see out there, dress like a whore, sleep around, have no class and put their career over their family."
I totally agree with you, James. If I might add, those strong-headed women who are so attached to their careers and can provide everything for themselves it seems, they have pretty much eliminated the "need" for men, except for sexual intercourse. I for one, am seeking a wife and a mother for my children, not a corporate executive driving a BMW. Where can such women who are seeking to live out the traditional role be found?
December 09, 2007 at 09:27 PM
I sit hear and chuckle at the bitter irony of the situation. Women, myself included, bemoan the lack of good guys, and men bemoan the lack of good women.
I agree wholeheartedly with the ideas Sarah, Fre, and Spudmom are promoting. Women need to focus on following God and being virtuous in order to attract men who are focused on the same ideals. Good men are not looking for shallow, desperate man-hunters, but rather women who radiate with an inner beauty that comes from a love for God and for other people.
I also wanted to thank the guys who are refusing to settle for the self-centered, pleasure-seeking women who are the norm of the day. I am sure I can speak for the rest of the modesty-committed women on this board in saying that you are an inspiration to us all, and that your integrity is to be praised.
December 24, 2007 at 07:56 PM
I wish I had been as good a man as I wanted to be. I grew up in the 60s, celebrating the Playboy philosophy and the liberation in films and publications that permitted me to see what those before me had to sneek around and search for. It was all right out there, and I could see those of my generation (and of my parents' generation who were "pioneers") going on to buld a philosophy that would justify or legitimize their giving in to libido. I cannot blame others, but when I should have been developing a modest or moral world view, it was so much more fun, I thought, to celebrate liberty. The end result, though, was a dissatisfaction in life, with knowledge that I had let my own wants blind me to the needs of wife and family. Dissatisfaction because thankfully there was a remnant of religious beliefs that kept saying to me that this was not right, that this was not how men were supposed to live.
Perhaps it is wrong to try to characterize or romanticize sexual roles, but there IS something to the male desire to be a knight in shining armor, or to be a hero to his family. Living the role set up for the liberated man in a world of liebrated women, however, is not one that leads someone to feel themselves a hero or a knight.
It is like there are a couple of generations of men out there who have been denied their legacy, in that they know that when their children learn their secrets, their obsessions (itis all right there in their Windows "history" and "cookies" files), then these men lose the respect of their children.
On the other hand, I see in my son the strength of character I lacked. I also see him searching for a woman not jaded by this same liberty those like me have given, this belief in casual, non-committed sex.
This boomer generation has created a world where women and men who are committed to a belief in modesty, virtue, and committment have a difficult task in finding one another.
January 28, 2008 at 11:39 AM
im a single parent with a son his name is Ryan hes 7 years old and hes in first grade going into second. i live with my mom and my niece. my hobbies are talking on the phone shopping doing crossword puzzles and love poetry.
kris saeler |
February 13, 2008 at 02:27 PM
I had to respond because I might actually have an answer -- you find a good man not by looking for a good man but by going about your daily life. The men you meet will meet the real you, and you will know your own self better because you have been learning who you are by pursuing your own life instead of pursuing a man. (Let the man pursue you!)
I have some ability to talk about this -- after years of trying to get a man to like me, I "gave up," and started pursuing an interest of mine (teaching ESL). In the course of taking classes to get certified, I met a classmate who invited me to a party, where I met my husband for the first time. Both of us almost didn't go to the party, and neither of us really fit in. We talked for what seemed like hours.
I couldn't have picked a better man -- he supported my lifelong decision to stay chaste until I was married; in fact, he said it made him see me in a whole new light. The day that I told him that I was a virgin and would stay one until I was married, I saw a respect in his eyes that made me feel about ten feet tall. We were married two years after we met, and we now have a beautiful son and a happy home.
I cannot emphasize enough -- YOU ARE WORTH WAITING FOR. And let him pursue you. If you find yourself chasing a guy, he is the wrong one. Love and peace to all of my single sisters out there searching for the right guy. DON'T SETTLE!!!!! :D God cares about your happiness. He will not abandon you.
Lisa N. |
April 07, 2008 at 09:43 AM
Hi everyone! This seems like an impossible dream come true to me: To find a site where people actually share my opinions! I live in Europe (so that's why my English is not very good :-)), and I can say, in my opinion, Europe is even more sexualized than America! I'm rather alone with my thoughts on chastity. Great site.
I just wanted to comment on something the guys have been agreeing about: It seems to me that (and PLEASE, correct me if I'm wrong and I'm extremely sorry if I am) you want women to stay at home, look after the kids and that's it. Well - nothing's wrong with that! I myself, a mere 18 years old, want to find myself a good husband and, God willing, be an equally good mother and wife. But, may I ask, what is wrong with a woman who seeks self-fullfillment? I've got so many plans for my future - most of all, I want to become a successful author, God willing. I thought this was a good choice of occupation as I could spent most of the time with my kids whilst at the same time I could carry on a profession I've dreamt of since I can remember.
See, I don't think anything's wrong with your idea, but it seemed to me you're not too fond of the idea with working women.
Am I wrong? If not, why's that? I'm sorry, as I'm not a native speaker, I find it very hard to express myself. I didn't mean to offend anyone and have great respect for housewives (hey, I myself want to be one one day, too!).
November 23, 2008 at 10:21 AM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(You can use HTML tags like <b> <i> and <ul> to style your text.)
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address