Read this article from Forbes entitled "Careers and Marriage." If you're at all a "modern" woman (or man) with feminist sensibilities, then chances are you would be as outraged by this article as I was. The point and counterpoint read:
Point: Don't Marry Career Women
Counterpoint: Don't Marry A Lazy Man
But if they wanted to have an equal point and counterpoint, then it should have read:
Point: Don't Marry Career Women
Counterpoint: Don't Marry A Career Man
That would have been an equal discussion. The argument seems to be that one person should remain at home and be the primary home and family caretaker. Tradition alone has designated that women should play this role. But I thought in the 90s we saw a push for men to take part in that role. Why shouldn't men be the primary home and family caretaker? Wouldn't that fulfill the argument, leading to a "balanced" and happy marriage?
And quite frankly, if both partners are not helping around the home, sharing household duties equally, and if both parents are not investing time and energy in their children's lives, then it seems to me that that unit is imbalanced and unhealthy. Partners work together and support each other, and if both people live in one home, and use that space, then both people should be held accountable for its upkeep. And parents should be involved in their children's lives PERIOD. No ifs and or buts.
I could probably go on for a lot longer, but I'll end the tirade with this: I can only imagine that the Point was written by someone who thinks fondly of the golden era of Leave it to Beaver and "good old fashioned family values." America of today is as diverse ethnically as it is in its family structures. If we don't recognize that our basic family units have changed, and therefore also the roles of the characters in these units, then we'll never be able to have a female president!
