I seem to be stuck in a gender-stereotype rut here; maybe it’s the current, amazing, political scene that is drawing me to evidences of ineptly expressed evidences of conceptual ineptitude. Be that as it may!
I’m not sure which “people” my student had in mind, but most of the people I know do NOT think of a family as a man going out to make a living. For most of us, even the most traditional, it’s quite a bit more than that.
And I can’t even imagine what that man might be doing as he is “condoning the money.”
“To condone” is to voluntarily forgive, overlook, pardon, or treat as unimportant. Generally, we might condone an error, a foible, a vice, a crime, a sin. I’m not sure how money can be forgiven or pardoned; and I’m pretty sure most people don’t consider its acquisition unimportant, not in this economy.
Obviously, for my student “the man” is in charge. Perhaps a second sentence revealed the role of “the woman” in the family, but if it did I didn’t record it, meaning that if it existed I found it neither funny nor amazing—which, considering THIS sentence, I think is unlikely, so probably he felt that the male role was the only one that needed to be established for his argument.
I can picture various ways in which the man might make a living, but I’m damned if I can picture him “condoning the money.” Would he do this in public or in private? Would it involve some sort of ritual of absolution, or could it be accomplished in private and informally? And what would happen to the money after it was condoned?
I suppose we could theorize that because of the way the man made the living the money might be considered “ill-gotten gains,” and so he must forgive it somehow before he can legitimately spend it, but I think that idea is too far-fetched to explain my writer.
Well, regardless of your sexual persuasion I hope you make plenty of money to condone. And if you do, I wish you’d tell me how in blazes you condone it! Suggestions as to what this student actually meant are welcome.