The money is work. Who gives money gives time-consuming job of not being with the family.
Twenty centuries ago was the profession of sophist.
At first they were very respected but then fell into disrepute.
As much knew almost all were considered wise, but the strongest of them was the language, rhetoric, effective use of words.
They were very criticized for defending or attacking highlighted any point of view. They could find arguments for and against whatever. They were able to attack and defend the same issue with a similar consistency argument.
How could it be otherwise aroused suspicion because we tend to think that honesty is shown defending and attacking a single idea to the contrary. It is shameful for someone with a similar fervor highlight the pros and cons of something. That majority, unwittingly, is more consistent with the fundamentalists, extremists, the Manicheans and why not with fools unable to understand that perfection does not exist and therefore, nothing can be perfectly good or perfectly bad.
With this introduction I tried to defend myself in advance because this article seems written by sophists.
Many women say they prefer that her husband is a companion. Husbands often complain that they are never.
Bother with who spend too much time making money at the expense of family life meet.
This complaint would be unfair if that spouse absent hardworking and make significant economic contributions to the welfare of the family.
Sophist's argument is that the money is simply not working. If the husband provides money, brings home a lot of work that must spend the time remaining to the family
Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): Quien aporta dinero, trabaja y está ausente.
(Este es el Artículo Nº 1.969)