QUOTE(debbieyss @ Oct 7 2009, 11:13 AM)
Yes, good one!
Only those incapable man will need and ask wives and gf to work.
A man if he is a real man with self-motivated attitude, will try his best to settle his financial capability, ALWAYS, despite of how hard it is!
My father even goes to work when he is sick, he brought his medicine along to work. He even works during public holidays.
I could hardly see any of the youngsters or those who claim they are average man have this kind of attitude. Basically, it's just wasting of time to talk to those who are not married and haven't set up a family yet.
Yes, my hubby is very traditional too, he believes a man should be the provider, he infact insist I quit my job aftre we're married. He says he feels more respectable bringing food back home.
QUOTE(silverhawk @ Oct 7 2009, 11:15 AM)
I get your point miss. I've got it from the start.

I didn't say you deleted it, I just said you placed money ABOVE it. Money is more important to you than the person's character.
This is incorrect, if I've put money above character I would've married that aramco guy, I would be instant millionaire
but I didnt.
That's good, though I wonder why you said "I believe I will" rather than "I will". Why is there that glimmer of doubt?
I said this because, I've been thru certain things and seen certain things, I know a person can promise heaven and earth, but when the time really comes they've no idea if they can take the pressure. I'm not a person who gives promises without thinking if I can fullfill it later on in life.
I could've just BS my way to win a debate, but nope, not gonna do that, I want this to be as realistic as possible.
That is YOUR perception of the argument, its not what WE are saying. At least not n00bi3, duke red and I. What we're saying its doomed when you place MONEY before CHARACTER. You're advocating looking for someone rich with a good character, rather than someone with a good character that happens to be rich. There is a difference between the two.
When you put money as the initial criteria, you don't bother to know the person first and what he is capable of. You just look at what he has, if he doesn't "have it" yet, you just ignore him. If you put character as the initial criteria, you'll actually get to KNOW the person FIRST, whether he has enough money to support you or not, or whether he is capable, you will then know and decide.
To start dating him, yes I would make sure he is rich, this is the part where money is above character, coz I dun think so I can tell a persons character in a few outing. But to decide if I can settle down with him, he has to meet my husband material.Debbie holds the latter view, she looks at character first. You don't see me slamming her views, only yours. Did you ever stop to think WHY?
No, because I'm already married and very contended, I'm just here to debate, same as plenty call me a prostitute, and I label them loser who are impotent to provide, but that doesnt matter, I cant stop yuor thinking and vice versa.
I've seen many girls marry "poor" people and also be happy! Likewise I've seen people marry rich people and be sad.
Do you know financial problem is one of the top cause of divorce?
Once again, you JUMP to the extreme. Between ok-ok and perfect there's a huge gamut of choices. I'm saying we should stick with someone we can accept, some who's character we like. Not someone's who's character we simply tolerate because they can give us something in return.
You've missed or twist my point completely, you first say you got my point about, I've just add rich to husband criteria, and now you say I compromise his character? if he cant swept me off my feet we wont even be dating 10 dates.As I mentioned again and again, you're not looking at the points we're trying to tell you. You have an assumption of what we mean, and that skews your perception of our argument. Then you go around and try to refute us based on your version of our argument. However that is NOT what we're saying. Try to discuss this properly yes?
You know, if I didn't know better... I'd think you were male. Your ego is at least as big as one
Did it ever occur to you that I have a JOB and I need to WORK?

Your arrogance astounds me. Proving you wrong is easy, and I've consistently been doing it, of course your ego will not allow yourself to admit that

There's nothing wrong with that. However, in life things do not always go the way we want them to. In that event, would you be willing to work to help support your family? or would you rather let your hubby carry all the burden? In any scenario, its always a good idea to be prepared for the worst, even though there is no sign of it coming in the future.
Again and again you did not prove anything in here, yu assume you did but in reality you didnt.
My aim is to have a family, my aim is to be a full time mother, is there anything wrong for a person to have this simple contended aim in life? am I aiming too high?
About the rich part, I want security and I want a man who can provide for me and baby, is this too high to ask?
Please answer me this
Is aiming being a full time mother wrong?
You think yu;re helluva debater, you're also full of arrogance, yes I'll sit here and wait for your answer.
Added on October 7, 2009, 12:35 pmQUOTE(7chai @ Oct 7 2009, 11:34 AM)
I guess i understand what is your stand, the man who are financial capable u give more priority but in the same time observing his personality and attitude, cause those are determine a person's quality. and with that both, then only it makes u secure enough for u to step into another stage with this man which is marriage. am i right ?
precisely
QUOTE(blitzboy @ Oct 7 2009, 11:42 AM)
I TOTALLY AGREE to Hawk.
In short, moorish is taking a shortcut to access for unlimited wealth. Marrying someone rich can help you skip working life? NO WAY. You think it is that easy?
She refuse to work. Let me guess why?
Working is tough and hard.
I hate facing people or being instructed by superior or boss.
All I want is money but don't want to work.
Working is stressful, tiring and restless.
I invite you to take of Noreen just 6 hours will do, and you tell me if working is easy or taking full time care of baby is easy. Plenty of woman would rather hire a maid or baby sitter so she can be free again. You know how life is with baby clinging on me, demanding milk every 2 hours, poo poo and pee pee every 1 hours, changing 18 diapers a day, pacifying a baby refusing to sleep, I cant even find time to wash my hair!!!
You're a person whom had not progress into the next stage of life, you're thinking being a mother is simple and housewife are just lazy bums.
I wont shoot you with words because you;re still young, but I'm sure you'll feel differently when you grow up one day, I hope you treat your wife with respect.Let's look at reality again.
Both man and woman work. Man loves woman, woman loves man because both has the initial criteria both can agreed.
Man spend money to have time with a woman. Woman spent time with man. Fair enough. Still both are working.
Man works hard save money, and woman works hard and save money too.
Along the way they endure ups and downs but still they face it. Some losses job and find a new job, or get promoted with salary increase.
When man saved enough money he proposed a marriage to the woman after several years of relationship. Husband took a mortgage to buy a house, and diversified investment to create wealth. After married both husband and wife work harder save money just in case of uncertainty and reduce risk. They buy insurance and planned ahead of time. Wife got pregnant and still she goes to work even harder this time with a belly bulging. (Woman deserve respect this time.) A responsible husband works harder to prepare reserve funds for the incoming baby. (Man deserve respect too). The baby is born, both wife and husband took maternity leave to take of the child wife gets 3 months, Husband gets 1 or 2 months maternity leave.
Husband and wife resumes their daily work and together take turns to bring up child until tertiary education. At this point, both are financially stable should the need arises wife can quit the job and take care of the child. Husband advised the wife to quit and spend more time with the child. In some cases wife refused to quit fearing financial uncertainty and risk. Husband diversified investment in real estate and property to create passive income.
At this point, having money=security? Not exactly.
Let me tell you banking terms money is always a depreciating asset, bombarded by market forces. Prices go up during economy crisis and affects both man and woman. So is it good to be SAHM ?? SAHM with no prior working experience.
Anyone dares to challenge reality?
I didnt exactly read all your posting, but just wanna say this
I put a certain standard to my life, a man comes along with the same thinking, anything wrong with me and my husband? He likes a wife being a housewife, I want to be a housewife, I only see a perfect match.
This post has been edited by moorish: Oct 7 2009, 12:35 PM