Couldn't have said it better myself, Lola. And I can't imagine why anyone would disagree with you.
OK, I will, disagree. Up on my soapbox:
In a family, if one of the spouse advances, the family is better off. Granted, if BOTH advances, it's even better for the family. But that's not always possible, at least not often at the same time. So, a re-prioritization need to happen. The question is who should be the one who re-prioritize more?
This goes even further back than that. How many women out there are dating men who's younger, less accomplished and has less potential to better the family? I bet very, very few. I'm not one.
So, if majority of couples are made up of stronger male than female, then it makes perfect sense for the less strong female to support the advancement of their male partner for the maximum benefit of the family.
I was talking mostly about financial and career side of the matters above. But often, once a woman made that choice of "supporting" her spouse, it carries over to non-financial and career matters. So, the harder working male half should be allow to have more free time to unwind, shouldn't he? Un-fashionable as it may be, I can believe there're women who are just as happy as a homebody (or "lodge mom" in this context) as doing the stuff herself. It's her own choice. She's got to be happy with it, right?
Now, if a woman is not happy at the result of that sacrefies, she has every right to make a change. But for the most part, too many women had forgotten how to live HER OWN life by that stage. So she goes on being unhappy yet didn't know what she could do any more!
It doesn't have to be that way.
But it's got to start a lot more fundamental than just go out and do her own thing. She's got to realize she's an equal partner of her husband. When she realize that, perhaps she'll be able to explore her own potential. The rest, would come...
Ok, off my soapbox. Putting my anti-flame jacket on.
