The lifestlye has undergone dramatic changes over a couple of decades. Presently‚women are stepping out of houses for work in order to manage astronomical outlays which influenced their families negatively. Hence‚ it is argued that mother should be at home to look after family and therefore served with financial assistance by administration. Here‚ i would like to discord with given statement.
There are numerous points to endorse my point of view. First and foremost‚ the contribution of working mothers to boost productivity at work places is highly commendable. Hence‚ monetary aids could deprive working sectors of famale' s exceptional talent. Moreover‚ governments of some thriving nations have to manage hefty sum of money to facilitate people with optimum transportation‚education and employment opportunities. Thus‚ they may not have adaquate fund to confer financial support to mothers.
Further emphasizing on my point of view‚ in male domineering society it is essential for females to rub shoulder with man in every walk of life to bring equality and to develop self esteem. Consequently‚ the idea of money endorsement seems to be useless. By contrast others have conflicting opinions.
They think that‚ children do not attain social etiquettes and educational support due to busy lifestyle of parents. Besides this‚ they may join crime activities on account of less observation. In addition‚family life is supposed to be worse in the absence of mother. For instance‚neither domestic chores can be managed properly nor children and grandparents could be taken care of. Thence‚ mothers must be supported with sufficient lucre so that they do not need to work for money.
To recapitulate‚mother is backbone of every family union. Undeniably‚financial support ensure overall development of family. However‚ some other alyerantives can be searched rather than binding women with home responsibilities only
The
lifestlye
has undergone dramatic
changes
over a couple of decades.
Presently‚women
are stepping out of
houses
for work in order to manage astronomical outlays which influenced their
families
negatively
.
Hence‚
it
is argued
that
mother
should be at home to look after
family
and
therefore
served with financial assistance by administration.
Here‚
i
would like to discord with
given
statement.
There are numerous points to endorse my point of view.
First
and
foremost‚
the contribution of working mothers to boost productivity at work places is
highly
commendable.
Hence‚
monetary aids could deprive working sectors of
famale&
#039; s exceptional talent.
Moreover‚
governments
of
some
thriving nations
have to
manage hefty sum of money to facilitate
people
with optimum
transportation‚education
and employment opportunities.
Thus‚
they may not have
adaquate
fund to confer financial support to mothers.
Further
emphasizing on my point of
view‚
in male domineering society it is essential for females to rub shoulder with
man
in every walk of life to bring equality and to develop
self esteem
.
Consequently‚
the
idea
of money endorsement seems to be useless. By contrast others have conflicting opinions.
They
think
that‚
children do not attain social
etiquettes
and educational support due to busy lifestyle of parents.
Besides
this‚
they may
join
crime activities on account of less observation. In
addition‚family
life
is supposed
to be worse in the absence of
mother
. For
instance‚neither
domestic chores can
be managed
properly
nor children and grandparents could
be taken
care of.
Thence‚
mothers
must
be supported
with sufficient lucre
so
that they do not need to work for money.
To
recapitulate‚mother
is backbone of every
family
union.
Undeniably‚financial
support ensure
overall
development of
family
.
However‚
some
other
alyerantives
can
be searched
rather
than binding women with home responsibilities
only