Marriage is about compromise, yet it is perfectly reasonable to make it conditional upon obedience to certain roles? That is an interesting perspective. I wonder if any of you are actually married. I'm guessing no.
It is not sexist to pursue a woman who has complementary skills. What is sexist is not marrying a person you love because they refuse to fulfill the role you had set out for them. Nobody has yet explained what the justification is for that demand, or how anyone could imply that thinking 'Even though this woman is, in all other ways, perfect for me, I won't marry her because she won't stay home and cook for the kids' isn't sexist. Because it is. What other justification could there be but thinking that is her role, and that she has an obligation to fulfill it?
So, yes, I misspoke when I said it was a "sexist personal preference." As I clearly stated before, twice, there is nothing wrong with seeking complimentary skills. But putting undue emphasis on just one of those skills, and making fulfillment of a particular role the main condition of marriage, is undeniably sexist, because there is simply no logic that isn't sexist that can inform that position. I mean unless you go on first dates and tell them they are expected to stay home when you get married, well, I just don't see how what you guys are saying is logical at all.
You can't say "I want to work" and "She wants to work" and "Marriage is a compromise," and then make any non-sexist case for why she should necessarily be the one to quit her job. It just doesn't work like that. Maybe you make more and she makes less - you can talk about it, and explain that to her, and hopefully she agrees. But throwing ultimatums around is nothing more than sexism, as it implies her opinion is less valuable as yours (or his less than hers).