I'm not talking about people who want a traditional family structure. I'm talking about outdated notions that husbands need to "maintain" their little wives.
I didn't know that working and ensuring your kids "grow up healthy" were mutually exclusive options
Yes, healthy kids depend on some sort of constant parental presence. Ideally, the husband would work while the mother would stay home to nurse the baby, etc., and to give it care. But what about when the children get older, you say? I would say that a parental presence is still necessary. I don't feel like going through the specifics for every age group, but I will say that for children to be at their healthiest psychologically, they need a parent whom they can emulate and who is present. They also require regular discipline. You can't just send your kids to a daycare for a significant portion of the day and expect your kids to grow up as you wish.
There is even lots of scientific evidence which suggests that children's hormones can be changed due to an absence or negligence of one or more parents. For example, girls from fatherless households often have higher testosterone levels, which in turn leads to them being perceived as less attractive due to a smaller waist-hip ratio. In boys, the absence of a parent may make them more aggressive, possibly leading to crime or poor performance in school.
The pragmatic and time-tested approach to parenting is to have a mother who stays at home with the kids, and a father who provides financially. Of course both parents will still dedicate time to the children, but each will play a different, yet complementary role. This is just the natural way of things. This model cannot be sexist unless you consider mother nature a sexist. And if so, she must be some kind of masochistic self-hating woman... Or you might call me a misguided sexist for defending a natural paradigm, and if that is the case, so be it.
So yes. What I am saying is that to raise a child ideally, one of the parents must not work (at least until the child reaches puberty). You could argue that the father could stay home while the mother worked (which I would disagree with), but I do not wish to get into an argument like that so I'm leaving it at this.
Yup. Radical idea, isn't it?
Your statement seemed to say that girls in general did not rely on guys for money, which is plainly false. Almost all women I know would not marry a man less wealthy and/or educated then themself. The feminist ideal of financial independance as something which must be strived for just isn't true for the majority of women.
Debussy, I apologise for discribing your comments as idiocy. You have a right to express your views without being personally attacked. No matter how misguided those views may be 
What are your views, ada? What sort of family set-up do you envision for child-raising? What are your thoughts on child-raising? What are your thoughts on marriage and family? I bet I would find your views misguided. Well-intentioned, no doubt, but misled nevertheless.
Topic: Who do you think will be your future husband/ wife?