Lately I have been hearing a lot about stay-at-home moms.

Some of it is good, singing their praises on their level of patience and commitment to the family. But, as with all things, there is bad that comes with the good. There has been an alarming amount of people who have either come to me, posted online, or opinions on the news or radio about how stay at home moms are nothing but being lazy, unproductive and that they should go out into the world and start working to bring home some sort of income.

I plan to blow this whole spot up.

Note this is not a strike against single mothers. Single mothers are a whole different topic. Single mothers do not have the option to stay home. Single mothers have to be mommy and daddy, all in one person, so a discussion on that will have to come at another time.

First off, lets look to what the bible says about the roles of men and women. For women the bible has two great verses. The firs is 1 Timothy 5:14, and it says So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. The second is Titus 2:3-5, and it says Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. These two verses basically state that women love their husbands, submit to them, teach their children, and be homeward focused. And by submityou feministsI do NOT mean that women should blindly follow. I mean that women should speak their mind in a respectful manner, but if an agreement or compromise cannot be made, wives should submit to the leadership of their husbands, as they are the head of the household. Some

verses on this are Ephesians 5:21-32, Colossians 3:18, and 1 Peter 3:1-6. For men, 1 Timothy 5:8 says Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. This is a bold statement, but it also follows the curse laid upon us from our first parents, Adam and Eve. Eves punishment was painful childbirth and mistrust of her husband to the point of wanting to rule over him. Adams punishment, as head of the family, was more intense, and was that his work would be hard and his way marked by thorns and thistles, and that his wife would mistrust him, causing him to have difficulty in convincing her to submit to his leadership. The bible is VERY clear about these roles.

But, biblical commands aside, lets look at the typical day of a good stay-athome mom. Lets say she has three children: one eight-year-old, one fouryear-old, and a six-month-old. A typical day for a stay-at-home mom is something as follows:

4:30am- Gets up with the baby for some reason [feeding, changing, etc.] 7:00am- Gets up with her children, who have just pinged out of bed, makes breakfast 7:30am- Feeding the baby, while making sure that the eight year old has everything they need for school Dressed & clean Homework finished and in the bag Breakfast eaten Lunch packed [if that is the case] 8:15am- walking the eight year old to the bus/driving them to school whichever the case may be, with the other two in tow 9:00am- return home to start the days activities Setting up the four year old and the infant with learning activities Cleaning [dishes, laundry, vacuuming, etc.]

12:00pm- Feeding the baby and nap time Lunch and nap time for the four year old as well While they are napping, there is cleaning that can be done, or by a miracle, mom can take a nap too 1:30pm- Children are generally up by now, and the four year old can be set up with an activity such as a Veggie Tales movie or maybe playing with mom and perhaps the baby 3:30pm- Pick up/meet the eight year old from school 4:00pm- Start homework with the eight year old, feed the baby, and start on dinner The other two should get snacks to hold them over until dinner 5:00pm- Continue homework or have some play time with all the kids 5:30pm- Daddy comes home and its family time Dinner time, family activities, etc. 7:30pm- Feed the baby & bed time for the baby Clean up from dinner & erroneous toys left by the kids 8:30pm- Bed time for the four and eight year old This is usually not the most willing of tasks! 9:00pm- Spending some time just catching up with her husband Talking about the day Discussing issues Keeping up with plans or activities Just catching up Etc. Sometime in the night Caring for the infant who has woken up for whatever reason Caring for the others who may have also woken up Etc.

Now. Looking at that schedule, this does not include out-of-the-house activities such as sports, appointments, grocery shopping, etc. This also does not include prayer time, church, or church classes [CCD, Sunday school, youth group, etc.] So, given all of this, a typical stay at home mom holds all of the following jobs, plus some:

Chef Housekeeper Secretary Tutor Nanny Chauffeur Nurse Confidant/Counselor Playmate Story-teller Religious helper Etc.

All of these jobs combined would, if you do the math factoring in over-time, scheduling, taxes, supplies, and mileage, equal to an annual salary of roughly one to two million dollars for this stay at home mother. That is an amazing amount of work to be done for anyone, and every stay at home mom does it every day, for nothing.

While on the topic of money, lets look at what a working mother would have to make in order to really make a difference, financially, to the family. With the added costs of another vehicle, gas, taxes, day care, and other work associated costs, the mother would have to make at least sixty thousand dollars a year to come out just over breaking even.

Given this knowledge, there is a question of WHY do mothers work at all? I cannot answer this. I also cannot understand why women seem to be dying to challenge their natural instincts to be mothers to their children. Why do working moms want to challenge this? I have heard that working moms are working toward gender equality, that they are helping not only their family, but everyone. Really? If you have a menial job that is not essential, what are you really doing? You are dropping your kids off at day care for other people to raise them for 8-10 hours a day while you go to work to make some money that really does not help in the end. To be honest, all that sounds like is an excuse to get out of the responsibility of being a mother. You are getting your kids out of bed, getting them dressed and taking them to a strangers home/place of business around 8:00am. Some day care centers will even feed them breakfast in the morning, so that is one less thing that the parents actually have to do with their kids. Then, around 5:00pm-6:00pm, you pick them up, and take them home. They have already done at least some of their homework with the day care providers, so what you have to do is simply clean them up, feed them dinner, and put them to bed. This is a cop-out, saying that being a mom is too hard, and you want someone else to parent your kids.

So, after all if this, throw out your opinions. Do you think women should stay at home with their kids? Should they work? Have your opinions changed? Can you at least understand the other side?

5 people like this.

Susan Strickland Your thoughts are going to stir up quite a few comments! Among other things, the women's movement allowed women the opportunity to make the choice between staying at home or working. Every decision we make involves a choice. If the husband has a low-paying job and the couple want to own a home, it often means that a woman must work outside of the

home. (Or he could stay at home with the children while she works - I know plenty of people who have done just that!) I have seen too many women who stayed home with the children have grave difficulties when their busy husbands somehow found time to strike up a relationship with someone else and leave the woman ill-equipped to care financially for their family. These women find it difficult, if not downright impossible, to enter a workforce that is foreign to them. April 16 at 9:32pm Like Susan Strickland I wasn't done, but hit "Enter" to start a new line. Oops. In any case, each side has their argument. Be careful, all who respond to this, not to insult or degrade the others who comment. I have always worked and am happy that I did. I don't believe my children suffered for it. I would have loved to have stayed home with them as well, but it was a choice that I made based on my education and desire to "be all that I could be" (and that included being a mother). I never wanted someone else to parent my children. Someone else may have watched them while I was at work, but my husband and I did the actual parenting. April 16 at 9:37pm Like 1 Marybeth Baumgartner I haven't had a chance to read this through yet, but using the Bible as one of your main arguments is not the best strategy in an argument, generally speaking, since it strongly limits who the argument appeals to and implies that the Bible is the perfect prescriptive text--which is very, very far from the truth. (I could go on for ages about morality and the Bible, particularly about how they contradict each other multiple times, but I think you can likely think of bits of it yourself that are extremely problematic in terms of being a moral text.)

Not to mention, the Bible was written AGES ago, and the role of men and women is far from set in stone, since it's purely a social concept. To cling to opinions held centuries ago despite what is actually happening in the modern times is a mistake, and using the Bible in this way seems to encourage such clinging behaviors. Also, the Bible is a text that's constantly interpreted, so claiming that one version is unquestionably accurate is, well, questionable. For example, there are a lot of papers that've been written about interpreting the story of Adam and Eve, since maaaaany people find the punishment and general treatment of Eve to be problematic.

In short, I'd say avoid the Bible as much as possible in such arguments

directed to the general public. If you're speaking to a strictly Christian audience, or trying to appeal to their religious beliefs, then it's fine, but as a convincing argument, the use of scripture tends to fall short. Especially when you just accept Biblical scripture without providing a reason for doing so.

(And you know my feelings about all the "women should be subordinate to their husbands" bullshit [oh look, anger; tumblr, what've you done to me], so I'll just skip that rant.)

/and so it has begun April 16 at 10:11pm Unlike You + 3 others Courtney Corcoran OMG, MARYBETH SAID BULLSHIT. :3 April 16 at 10:18pm Like Isaac Indgjer likes this Courtney Corcoran Now, let's see how much of my response we can fit in one comment!

Wow. I was really looking forward to readin this, but as I go along I'm not so sure. The entire paragraph of bible quotes is completely irrelevant, at least for me. Some of us don't live our lives by the bible. Now, that being said, I did read the whole thing. I'm beyond disappointed that you believe that if a compromise cannot be found, the woman should buckle to the will of her husband. I'm ashamed to know that you feel this way. Have some pride in your gender, goddamnit. Men don't have difficulty making women submit to them because of Adam and Eve, as some sort of punishment. Men have difficulty making women submit to them because this is 2012. We have free will, and equal protection under the law, for the most part. I can't believe that as a woman you can let your new found religion tell you that you aren't capable of making your own decision unless your man says so. This is not the friend I once knew. You used to make all of your own decisions and not take ANYONE'S shit. You ruled your life with an iron fist, and now all of a sudden you want to submit to the will of someone else because an old, edited and rewritten book told you to? I have no problems with you finding religion, and hell, if it improves your life, more power to you, but I do have a problem with it changing who you are for the worst. Start standing up for yourself again. I also find it hard to believe you'd put 'religious helper' int he list of duties. Ot's bad enough you are going to submit to your husband when you can't

agree, but you're not goign to let your children make the decision of religion on their own? I seriously hope this is just me blowing that line out of proportion. I hope you literally mean 'helper' and not 'enforcer.'

The paragraph on why women work also upsets me, quite a bit. Soem women are nto so lucky to be able to stay home with their kids. Some women have to do everything in their power to bring home an income for their families just to survive. Other women don't WANT to stay at home all day with their children. Some women have pride in their work, and their own abilities and want the opportunity to prove themselves. Some of them just ENJOY the work that they do. Who are you to criticize someone that is doing what they love to do? This is also assuming that the father of the children isn't staying home with them instead. Who's to say women are the only ones that can stay home with their children? It happens all over the world.

As you brought up, it IS a matter of gender equality. It's a matter of women fighting for equal rights and equal protection under the law any way we can. Women make, on average, a great deal less than men for doing the same jobs, and pay, on average, more than men for the same healthcare. Many women see being a stay at home mom as giving up on their dreams, and giving up on their rights. Many men see their wives being stay at home moms as a sign of submission to the bread winner. Many families would not make ends meet if both parents didn't work one, two, and sometimes three or more jobs.

Not all women work 'meanial jobs'. A lot of women make more money than their husbands. A lot of women are CEO's and managers and own their own businesses. Just because you and I have worked menial jobs doesn't mean that every woman works a menial job. Saying that going to work instead of staying home with your kids is an excuse to get out of raising your kids is one of the most monstrous things I've ever heard. I knwo that I don't have a kid right now, but you don't either. I've been watching so many of my friends and family members getting pregnant, and I've been watching them struggle. They want to stay home with their kids, naturally, but they also have their own ambitions, their own dreams, and they all have bills to pay.

I'm seeing the same thing from single moms, and married moms alike.

Some of them can and do stay at home with their kids, and others can't, whether they want to or not. I currently babysit for a living, and I know a particular stay at home mom that will agree with me, it's fucking boring. You are stuck in a house all day long with no adult conversation, spending all of your time tending to a child that doesn't often appreciate your tiem and effort. Not all women can handle this, and not all women want that to be what they did with their lives. What exactly do you think happens to these women when the children all grow up? Do she just sit around the house all day ding whatever her husband asks her? I fucking hope not. After a certain age, kids are at school all day, and don't need the poking and prodding that younger children do. Your position as a stay at home mom is no longer needed, and look at that, you've been out of the job market for 10+ years. Have fun trying to get someone to hire you, especially if you never held a job before you had kids.

Now take into account young parents. I'm not saying sleepign around and getting pregnant is okay, nor am I saying couples that marry and have kids at 18 are okay either, but it happens. Once the child is born, it's too late. All they can do now is try to give the child a good life, and that doesn't always include staying home with the kid. What 18-22 year old do you know that has a stable marriage and a high paying job that they can stay in for the majority of their careers, offering benefits like healthcare, as well as having a reliable, new enough car that will last, a home of their own that isn't going to break the bank for them, and enough money left over after all of that to pay for bills, food, gas, and essentials? It doesn't happen hardly ever, and if it does, it's more than likely because both of those parents came from wealthy parents themselves. Younger parents most often HAVE to work, BOTH of them, just to support their families, and that's just couples with ONE kid, let aloen three, like the family you mentioned.

I'm all for stay at home moms, and I respect their choice and their work, but it isn't right for all moms, and it isn't right for all families.

I think you need to take a step out of your bible study and into the real world. Don't throw your religion away because of what I say, but fuck Ariana, you sound like a whole different person right now, and I miss my friend. I may not be around all the time, and I might not always be available, or very much fun, but I have always considered us close friends.

April 16 at 10:19pm Like Courtney Corcoran AW YISS. All of it in one. April 16 at 10:19pm Like Jonathan Baker + 2 others Marybeth Baumgartner Also, if you're looking to read anything about ethics, it sounds like care ethics might be to your interests. One of the main points is that women are shunted into the private sphere (i.e., the home), while men can flit between the private and public spheres with no problem. (As might be obvious, care ethics is very tied to the feminist movement.) As a result, the public world tends to label any sort of caring, nurturing, etc. work as "women's work" and their duty. Instead of acknowledging it as valid work that's just as strenuous as working, say, in an office, it's considered "natural" for women to do it, because they have this ~mysterious~ drive that makes them want to nurture others, thus making it fit under the "not work" label. Which is ridiculous. But, yes. It may be an interesting read. April 16 at 10:20pm Unlike You like this Courtney Corcoran Men have paternal instincts too. There are dead beat moms and stay at home dads. Gender should have nothing to do with this argument. Long live feminism! April 16 at 10:25pm Like Marybeth Baumgartner likes this TiAira Savage Two words.......POINT PROVEN!!!!!!!!! :) April 16 at 10:40pm Like Marybeth Baumgartner Continuing beyond the paragraph already addressed:

I'm a bit skeptical of the calculation for how much a working mother would have to make to "break even." Not to mention that there's always carpooling and taking the bus to offset the supposed costs of another car and gas. Did you get this statistic from a site of some sort? Because I'm really confused about where that number came from.

All in all, I find this entire essay worrying. Why is all this nurturing work dumped on the mother's lap? Why is the father separate from this? Why can't the mother ask a family member to look after her kids while she pursues a career she might have wanted since she as a kid? Why does she have to drop EVERYTHING she has fought for--her job, her independence, her education

(because, really, if women are just meant to be mothers who need to spend all their time with their kids, what's the point of spending so much money educating women, according to all this?)--just because she had a kid? Why can't the father be the one to drop everything he's worked for, because obviously he would barely be able to break even at $60,000, too, if that statistic is accurate. Why do only women "make some money that really does not help in the end" and not men? It makes no sense.

Also, big problem: Women do not have natural urges to nurture. That's a misconception, and sure, there might be social pressures for women to be more sensitive, or more kid-friendly, but that doesn't make them "natural" nurturers or mothers. Men can be nurturers. Women can be the providers. Men can be sensitive. Women can be distant. Men aren't naturally anything any more women are naturally anything.

There are just so many sexist underpinnings of this argument. Other than your argument based on the Bible, nothing you've said is only applicable to women; very single point can as easily be attributed to men as to women. There's no reason to pin all this blame on the mother and only the mother unless there's a bit of sexism swimming around. April 16 at 10:41pm Unlike You like this Isaac Indgjer ^I believe in general men are more male naturally than women April 16 at 10:43pm Unlike You like this Marybeth Baumgartner XD

I would agree, but that would be a bit transphobic, really. (From what I've read, "man" tends to be used in reference to gender [the social construct] while "male" is used for sex [the biology of sex]. /the more you know) /what happens once I get into this mindset April 16 at 10:45pm Like Isaac Indgjer likes this Courtney Corcoran I am anxiously awaiting more from Ariana. RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE. April 16 at 11:01pm Like Marybeth Baumgartner likes this

Dennis Gillikin First off To ask a Christian to not use the bible as a reference, is like asking someone to stop breathing. And when someone finds Christ they will change, that change is for the better, if you cannot deal with their change then you are obviously not grown up an of to deal with the reality that they have changed. Just because they find Christ dose not mean that they have given up their will, and bend to what the spouse wants, but understands that constant bickering will go no were but down. April 16 at 11:15pm Like 2 Marybeth Baumgartner I'm not saying she can't use the Bible for her everyday life. I'm just saying that it's a terrible strategy for convincing people who aren't as religious as you.

And thanks for the unwanted sermon and insults to my person, but I'm fine with my Christ-less life. I'd suggest looking at yourself and why you feel so defensive when someone questions anything about the Bible. If your faith were really that strong, you'd think you wouldn't be bothered and you wouldn't feel the need to jump on me for saying something I never said in the first place.

Also, assumptions, ahoy! Finding religion doesn't make you a better person. Finding religion can be the trigger to becoming a terrible person and for accepting terrible "truths" that one might otherwise question. If a friend is using the Bible as a source of sexism, then hell yes, I'm going to say something about it. And if you honestly think that someone's acceptance of sexist views is a good thing, I don't think there's anything more I can say to someone who can't comprehend what such views can do to society. April 16 at 11:20pm Unlike You like this Courtney Corcoran Sorry, but that's exactly what she just said. I clearly stated that "I have no problems with you finding religion, and hell, if it improves your life, more power to you, but I do have a problem with it changing who you are for the worst" Religion is fine with me. My friend submitting herself to someone else's will and believing that she has to do certain things, and can't do others because she is a woman is NOT okay.

And no, the change to being a christian is not ALWAYS for the better. Like every other religion, it can make a lot of people happy, but also like every other religion, wars have been waged in Christ's name. People have been

murdered, beaten, raped, abused, and oppressed in his name. If christianity has made my friend sexist against her own gender, then it is NOT a good change.

I agree whole heartedly with Marybeth. Neither one of us expressed anger or hatredy towards any religion, and neither one of us will stop being her friend because of her religious choices. April 16 at 11:21pm Like Marybeth Baumgartner And before you twist my words again: I'm not saying that finding religion is necessarily a bad thing, either. I'm saying that it can be either good or bad. There are cases where it's exceptionally terrible-such as cases where fundamentalists might try to kill heathens because their holy book condones it--and cases where it's exceptionally good--such as people who dive into charity work due to their new-found faith. Religion is a neutral force, but it's entirely naive (or blind) to say that it can only do good and never evil. April 16 at 11:22pm Like Dennis Gillikin well the using the bible as one of your main arguments is not a good idea; that is saying you should not use the bible in a argument is it not? or do you mean that in some other way? April 16 at 11:23pm Like Courtney Corcoran She is saying it is only effective in arguments with other christians. Quoting the bible to an atheist or someone of a different religion is like citing Chinese law to an American. It doens't apply. April 16 at 11:24pm Like Marybeth Baumgartner likes this Isaac Indgjer yes courtney^ I believe they're trying to say its like trying to use the quaran (sp?), fine for that religious sect, but other religious and atheists can't see it as such a credible source April 16 at 11:25pm Unlike You + 1 other Courtney Corcoran Yes, exactly. April 16 at 11:26pm Like Marybeth Baumgartner Exactly what Courtney said. If you just quote a book at me, especially when that book holds no value to me, and have no reasoning behind using those quotes besides "these quotes are from this

book and therefore they are correct and I don't have to explain myself or defend their contents at all," then I am not going to be moved. It's a terrible strategy because it's not based on logic that everyone will appreciate: It's based on logic that assumes a specific belief (i.e., that the Bible is true, ineffable, and prescriptive), and that logic goes nowhere if you don't hold that belief. April 16 at 11:26pm Like Dennis Gillikin if you are a American in china, there laws do apply; and if some one form china were to talk to a american about their laws, it would be form there prospective. this is the same thing, when some one is referring the Bible they talking about things from there perspective, and what it is based off of. April 16 at 11:28pm Like Ariana Lockington Firstly, I suggest you follow Mrs. Strickland's advice and stop insulting me and subsequently anyone who feels anywhere similar to what I do. Second, I have not changed for the worst, and that is completely shameful for you to say to me, given our past, Courtney. I love you dearly, sister, but I will not take this from you. Thirdly, if you would read it, and other things I have written on submission, its NOT blindly following. Its NOT saying that women don't have thoughts or ideas. Its NOT saying that women can't be right or have something BETTER to contribute. It IS saying, however, that there needs to be leadership. And leadership, and ultimately responsibility, falls to the man. Since you referenced Adam and Eve as well, I will too, again. When SHE sinned first, she sinned through COMISSION; she ate the fruit. Adam then sinned through OMISSION; he did not stand up and lead his family as he was instructed to do. So when they were punished, she was punished, and he was punished, but he was punished as the head of the household, where responsibility ultimately fell. The same principle follows through in the idea of submission. If I want to have another baby and my husband does not think it is a good idea, we can talk about it. If that does not help, we can seek guidance from someone more knowledgeable--a doctor, a pastor, an older couple, whatever--and see if we can come up with a decision. If that still does not work, and this is where submission to leadership comes in, the decision AND responsibility for the outcome falls to my husband. This does not mean that I have said nothing, obviously, because I will never blindly follow. NEVER. But, if it came down to it, I am willing to allow a decision to be made, because that is a level of trust that will be there. I would trust that all the factors have been weighed in, all

the opinions heard, etc. and a decision is being made on what is best for ME and my family. A wife should submit leadership to her husband. A husband should lovingly lead his wife and family, putting their needs above his own. So it balances out in the end. Fourth. I realize that the religious aspect may have offended you. But the fact that you are focusing on it, and not the rest, is offensive to me. This is just my opinion on a topic. Not saying what everyone has to do. I do not care what people do. But I am tired of hearing so much bad about stay at home mothers, which is what sparked this whole thing. It is also NOT about women giving up everything. If it is your dream to work and be a mother, do your thing. It is MY dream to be a stay at home mother. I am also NOT saying that all women work menial jobs, and its ludicrous that you even dreamed I meant that. I realize that some women are big in the business. Good for them! Everyone should be able to do what they want with their life, and if they are successful, why not keep doing it? I am just stating how I feel. All in all, I am hurt that I am being insulted by my two closest friends for an opinion essay I wrote for fun. As a reference to your reference on ethics, that does not seem ethical. I mentioned no one by name, just vague examples and some stats from MSNBC and other news outlets. You two literally put MY NAME in your insults. I dont know where you lost your sense, but it would be a good thing to find, because that is not going to help you in this argument with me. And it surely is not going to maintain any friendship ever.

Your turn. I am not pleased with the quality of your reaction or responses. April 16 at 11:29pm Like 1 Courtney Corcoran Again, citing the bible has no meaning here, at least not to anyone other than you and Dennis, apparently. But you contradicted yourself a few times in just that post. You say that you don't want to submit yourself to your husband, yet you say that if you can't find a solution, he auto-wins. That's submission, honey.Your religion taking place in this does nto offend me. I'm perfectly aware that people have their own religions, and I'm perfectly accepting of their existance. What I'm not accepting of if sexism. That's what all of this has really been about, at least in my portion of the argument. None of this was intended as a personal attack, but I will no silence my voice because it hurts your feelings. April 16 at 11:36pm Like Dennis Gillikin were dose she say he auto wins? i see were it says they will discuss it and if they cant come to a conclusion they will seek help with

others who have more experience. And were after that if they still didn't come to the same resolution she would trust his decision on the subject April 16 at 11:39pm Like Courtney Corcoran EI: Submit to him. April 16 at 11:41pm Like Ariana Lockington I do not want to SILENTLY submit. I will if there is no agreement to be had. Because responsibility goes with that leadership. If it works out then yay for everyone, if it fails, the failure falls to his poor leadership. I am not being sexist, because I love women. I think women are wonderful. I think that they bring things that men just generally don't to the table. I think that women should be able to do whatever they want and all that. This is just how I feel should happen. Why is the religious part the focus? There are other parts to this post. I am not asking you to be silent. You can say what you want, I just don't expect you to attack me. And if you put my name in a sentence that is negative, that is going to be seen as an attack. "but fuck Ariana, you sound like a whole different person right now, and I miss my friend." And there are some directed to me that don't have my name, such as " I'm ashamed to know that you feel this way." WTH is that?!!? I have never been ashamed of your feelings or opinions. April 16 at 11:42pm Like 3 Marybeth Baumgartner Ariana, the entire idea that leadership falls to the man is sexist. End of story. There's no argument to be had. April 16 at 11:46pm Unlike You like this Courtney Corcoran Look, I have my own opinions on politics, religion, social issues, etc. but the number one thing that I believe in ABSOLUTELY is equality and equal rights for EVERYONE. As, I said, the religious portion of this is simply a matter of ineffectiveness.

Marybeth put it perfectly, that is sexism, black and white. No grey area. [I can't 'like' that enough.]

As for the 'personal attacks' using your name doesn't make it an attack. Read what I said. I don't want a life of servitude to your husband and children for you. You're better than that. April 16 at 11:47pm Like

Marybeth Baumgartner Also, Ariana, I've never meant to target you. My issue is with your logic and your sexist views. Your views are not you. I'm not going to let opinions that hurt other people stand just because their yours, just as (I hope) all of you would confront me if I started holding views that hurt other people. April 16 at 11:48pm Unlike You like this Courtney Corcoran *Crying* April 16 at 11:50pm Like Marybeth Baumgartner Also, I'm guessing the reference to ethics is the post I made about care ethicswhich had absolutely nothing to do with targeting you. I was trying to be helpful and recommend a topic I thought would interest you, and I'm confused if you read that as a jab at anything you wrote? April 16 at 11:50pm Like Marybeth Baumgartner they're****

You know things are intense when my grammar starts slipping. April 16 at 11:51pm Unlike You + 1 other Ariana Lockington Its not servatude if you are willing. And its not servatude if you would get the "put her needs before his own" bit. Simply put, I will always win in the end.

I took the ethics post as a strike saying I was being unethical. Sorry for that.

I am seriously done with this conversation. I cannot handle this before I go to bed after a long day and another one tomorrow. And I cannot deal with being the bad guy for an OPINION.

YOU ARE CRYING?!!? Your best friend didn't just tell you that she was ASHAMED for your belief or feelings. April 16 at 11:54pm Like

Ariana Lockington And, for not being able to "like" something enough, you didn't "like" her post at all. April 16 at 11:55pm Like Courtney Corcoran IT IS SERVITUDE. IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING IT'S SLAVERY.

Oh, it was the good kind of crying, and it wasn't literal. I'm not actually crying. April 16 at 11:55pm Like Jonathan Baker likes this Dennis Gillikin if you really want to be sexist men still are getting paid more the women, not fair..but it is how it is. With that in mind if one was to stay home who should it be? and i see nothing wrong with a guy staying home and being a stay at home daddy, but just having a parent at home for the children is important. for example if the dad can work and make 100k while the mom could work (and the approximation % diffidence) 79K April 16 at 11:59pm Like Ariana Lockington Well guess what, cowgirl, I am. And not the good kind either. Service goes both ways. Don't think its a cinderella story. April 16 at 11:59pm Like Dennis Gillikin which one should work, or are you saying both should work and leave the kids alone? April 17 at 12:00am Like Courtney Corcoran The point that I CLEARLY stated in my longer post was that not every family has that option financially, and that not ever family WANTS someone to stay home with the kids. It won't kill the kid to go to day care. Really guys. I grew up with day care and I don't hate my parents or resent them for it or anything. I turned out just fine. If every family had one member stay home with the kids I'd be unemployed right now. A LOT of people would be unemployed right now, ad that's just the babysitters/daycare providers, not to mention that women make up just over half of our nation. I refuse to give up my career just because I have kids, and I refuse to let my husband do that either. We aren't all Ann Romney's. We can't all stay at home with our kids relying on our husbands to bring in enough money to

support 3 or more of us. April 17 at 12:04am Like Marybeth Baumgartner Um, how about instead of accepting prejudice, you try fighting it and being an active agent in the world? By that logic, I should drop out of college while I'm at it and find a nice man to give my money to so he can go to college instead, since obviously my education would just lead to a lower paying job than anything he'd get, so why try? Why try arguing with people, when they're just going to pass me off as an oversensitive, hysterical woman when my voice starts to rise at all? Why try going out in public at all, when I'm "inviting" rape to do so? Your argument relies on the assumption that we shouldn't fight sexism, and that assumption is not just wrong but ridiculously so.

If two parents want to work and let a family member or daycare provider care for their children while they're away, that's their business. It's not as though kids who've gone to daycare their entire lives are worse off than kids who've had a parent home 24/7. You have no right to tell them what they should and shouldn't do. Worry about yourself and stop imposing your beliefs on others. April 17 at 12:05am Unlike You like this Bryan Crosby agree whole heartedly with this. And I know my thoughts won't mean much to those who oppose but I will say it anyway. christianity has done more for women's rights and equality than any other religion. Close to two thousand years ago women were thought of as property and I thank God its no longer like that. I believe that Ariana hit it right on the head and yes there are exceptions to every rule but most likely its people trying to cop out of their responsibilities. Courtney, as far as after all the kids are in school the decision to stay home or not is up to the couple. I personally would have no issue if my future wife wanted to go back to work when the kids are all at school. And as far as thinking the Bible is an old book, written centuries ago and has outdated ideas, the two most popular topics are about sex and money. I don't know about you but I know people who have had issues with one or the other including myself. finally the idea of women working outside the house is a relatively new idea, I don't have the exact numbers in hand but look when women started really hitting the out of home workforce and compare that to rises in divorce in couples along with psychological issues in children. its clear that there is a problem with how we think in our time and culture. I could go on but I'll end there April 17 at 12:05am Like

Ariana Lockington I am so done with this conversation. It is clear that you two will not concede to me, and I won't either. So let it be and move on. But I am done with it, completely. April 17 at 12:09am Like Dennis Gillikin who is putting words in who's mouth now? i had stated my option of what i think, not that is what every one has to do. if you want to change any thing how can you do it with out imposing you beliefs? April 17 at 12:10am Like 1 Courtney Corcoran People get divorced because their relationships did work out, or because they shouldn't have been married in the first place. To insinuate that a woman having a job causes divorce, and causes their children emotional distress is BEYOND IGNORANT, and I cannot believe that someone could even begin to think that way.

How many working moms do you people even know? I'd imagine if you knew more of them, and I mean really know them, you'd think differently. People don't just have kids for shits and giggles. How can this argument go from "Women are natural moms, and want to nurture" to "Working women just don't want their kids" THAT'S A BIG 'OL CONTRADICTION RIGHT THERE.

And for the record, Bryan, I stated above that it's not easy to just go back and find a job after you've raised your kids. You've easily been unemployed for several years, and that looks TERRIBLE on a resume. It's hard enough to find a job as it is, especially for women. April 17 at 12:10am Like Marybeth Baumgartner Bryan, who cares? The past is the past, and now Christianity is hurting women. Yes, Christianity as been used (emphasis on used) to back women's rights movements, just as Christianity has been used to both support and strike down slavery, genocide, and many other atrocities.

And why do people keep assuming that working mothers are suddenly lazy? Why can't they be working to better their child's life? How is working so terrible, when the result of it (money) greatly improves one's own and one's children's quality of life? People need to stop claiming they know the exact

reasoning behind why mothers go back to work after having a kid, especially when it's such a ridiculous claim as them being lazy, of all things. Some mothers just aren't cut out for childrearing. Some mothers want to support a struggling family. Some mothers want to work to save money for their kid's future, perhaps for private schooling and colleges, or perhaps to move to a better neighborhood. Sometimes daycare might, God forbid, even be better than staying home with a parent, because it allows for more socialization and interaction with peers instead of being locked in a house, trailing after your parent. Simplifying this decision to a single assumption is absolutely ridiculous.

Also, Bryan, most importantly: STOP ACTING AS THOUGH YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE CONTROL OVER YOUR WIFE'S DECISIONS. If you want someone looking after your kids and your wife wants to work, YOU CAN STAY HOME YOURSELF. Jesus Christ, I don't understand how you can type something like that without realizing how painfully sexist and controlling it is. April 17 at 12:13am Unlike You like this Ariana Lockington DON'T TAKE A NAME IN VAIN THAT YOU DO NOT ACCEPT! THAT IS BEYOND RUDE AND DISRESPECTFUL! Continue this conversation elsewhere. Its done here. I am not reading this anymore. April 17 at 12:16am Like 1 Courtney Corcoran OH GOD. THE INTERNET. SOMEONE SAID SOMETHING MEAN.

Since when does going to work = lazy? Since when does a religion that has oppressed women through it's entire existance = a religion that isn't sexist?

And I can vouche for daycare beign helpful. My boyfriends niece and nephew stay at home all day with each other and their social skills are less than average. Neither of them ahve ever really had to deal with children other than each other. Plus, ya know, if a mom is working and her kids are in daycare it provides a job for the daycare provider, and more income for the family. That's pretty simple.

And again with the censorship, I don't say things like 'Jesus Christ' to offend people, but I'm not going to censor myself. End of story. No one else should have to either. You opened yourself up to this one, I'm afraid. April 17 at 12:20am Like Courtney Corcoran Marybeth and I will continue this in private, I can almost guarantee it. I'm sorry things got so heated, but you and everyone else here made some wildly controversial statements. April 17 at 12:21am Like Marybeth Baumgartner Dennis, two things:

How someone raises their kids is their own decision. You have no right to tell them how to raise their kids than I have to tell you to stop going to church, or to stop doing whatever else you choose to do in your own home.

If your only argument why something should change is "THE BIBLE SAYS IT'S WRONG," you have no place enforcing that belief on anyone. If something can't be universally accepted across all genders, races, religious creeds, etc., then the argument is a poor one and the belief/law has no place being enforced across all genders, races, religious creeds, etc. April 17 at 12:22am Unlike You like this Marybeth Baumgartner And Ariana, given how often I say that, I am extremely surprised that you feel that strongly about it. Honestly, if you take that much offense, direct your ire to the society that throws it around willynilly, because I sure didn't start using it because I thought it'd offend people. I consider it as valid an invective as any curse, and while I'll try to avoid saying it when you're around, if it upsets you this much, I fail to understand why saying something that is often heard across television, film, the streets, virtually everywhere is such a taboo. They're words, and they aren't meant to cause offense. Again, I'll avoid using the phrase in your presence, but I am surprised by this vehemence. April 17 at 12:25am Unlike You like this Marybeth Baumgartner /and I'm out April 17 at 12:26am Like Jonathan Baker likes this Ariana Lockington Given the context, its a little insulting. Last thing before

I quit, about the social skills. No one said they had to stay home all day. Play dates are awesome. My schedule didn't list it because its an extra, which I mentioned afterwards.

/I'm out April 17 at 12:34am Like 1 Kelly Crosby HOLY smokes... (pun intended). This may be off topic at this point - but as for moms working in the home or not, I think it ends up a family choice or necessity, based on each situation. I, luckily, was able to stay home with my boys when they were young. When they entered school I again was lucky enough to "follow" them to school and worked there with them until they went to middle school. ( I did get a good job after that, which supported my boys and me, as that is when I also became a single mom)..... I think my boys became better men because of that.

~With that said, my brother and sister-in-law worked when their girls were young and that worked well for them. All three girls grew up to be amazing adults.

It is, in my opinion, personal choice, as is religion. I think we must respect each other's choices and appreciate the differences.

How boring and undeveloped would the world be if we all agreed? April 17 at 12:35am Like Marybeth Baumgartner + 1 other Bryan Crosby I know quite a few working moms, usually single moms because the child has a dead beat father. Like I said earlier, it doesn't mean its the only way, there are exceptions but people try to hard to find one rather than accept their responsibilities, not just in child raising but in a lot of things. I have yet to met a woman who was denied a job after raising children on the sole reason of being out of "work" for a few years. How exactly is christianity hurting women now? By little boys who take the "submission" verses out of context and forget about their responsibilities? I never said I want control over my wife. I don't want to marry someone who does

whatever I say. there are gender rules in marriage and I would hope that we agree on them. I knew coming from a Christian male point of view my comment wouldn't go over well. April 17 at 1:23am Like Steven Potter I realize that I am hella behind with this, but I was at work until a little while ago and didn't have the time to either read or post.

First off, I want to say that I have massive amounts of respect for ANYONE who brings a child into this world and manages to raise it in an even semirespectable manner; it is something I doubt I will ever be able to properly do. To me, I don't see much difference between a stay at home mother and a mother who goes out and works a 9-5 shift and then comes home and helps take care of her family. The same goes towards fathers. If you know anything about me you should know that I don't believe in half of the gender roles bullshit thrown around. Both the stay at home parent who spends time with their growing children nearly all day, and the working parent who only spends the mornings/evenings with their child end up putting the same amount of work in the end.

When it comes to the argument between staying at home with your child or daycare, I can really only throw in my own experiences as a daycare kid. My father made enough money to realistically support my family without the aid of my mother. My mother chose to also continue to work on base during our childhood, then go back to college (she had a bachelor degree while my dad had a High School degree) after my youngest sister had entered the upper grades of elementary school and become a special needs teacher. Her reason for doing such? She wanted to be able to provide more than the bare necessities for her children. She wanted to be able to help move my family out of our old, fairly run down house that was too small for a family of 6. She wanted to help in providing a great education for my family. When Christmas rolled around she wanted to be able to help provide our family with presents and such. I love and respect both of my parents 100%. Sure they can piss me off at times, but their my family, and that happens. Note: I am in no way insinuating here that working mothers are better than stay at home mothers; I'm just implementing the only true experience I have on the subject, because lets be honest, I don't hang out with many stay at home moms.

As for the viability of day care in this situation (again, only my personal

experiences). I love the hell out of my day care provider. She was like a second mother to me. I have more than a few great memories of hanging out at her house before and after school, playing with both her own kids and the other kids of the daycare. Now that I think about it, she really was a stay at home mom so maybe I do know at least one.

Now excuse me for a second because I'm about to hop back onto the religion train. You can choose to ignore this section if you like, I don't care; there were just a few things I felt needed to be said.

First off, I generally agree with Marybeth with that you really should not be directly quoting the bible in making decisions in modern times. That being said, the bible does provide a good backbone for expanding your own personal beliefs and morals. All I am saying is that it is a 2000 year old book that was for the most part originally written by men (I mean this as both men the gender, and man the race [protip: man is fallible]) , and then further translated by other men in a long chain of possible fuck ups. I am most certainly not saying disregard what the bible says, I'm just saying take everything you read with a grain of salt. Form your own opinions. God saw fit to allow us humans to retain our free will after Adam and Eve were royally ejected from the Garden of Eden; I personally believe that he intends for us to use it. Blind faith is as harmful as Blind hatred/doubt. There is only one thing I hate more than blind doubt, and that is blind faith.

To build on this, to the proud atheists who have spoken before me. Do not blindly throw out the whole "That is a 2000 year old book of a faith I don't believe in" card. Say what you will about my belief in a gigantic greybearded man in the sky who watches my every move, but there is one thing you can not deny; and that is that modern western civilization was built around Christianity. Many common everyday morals of today's society were built on past commandments and laws passed down in the original bible.

And before that last paragraph gets shot down because I hold a different faith, this is me speaking as a historical enthusiast, not as a member of the Christian faith. Lord knows I really am not the one to be preaching religion to people.

TLDNR: People who say stay at home mothers are lazy are fucking retarded. People who attempt to say women must stay at home/must work really need to mind their own God damn business. Both myself and my other three siblings turned out well enough even though my mother was working/attaining a masters degree while we were growing up and I know plenty of other people who grew up with their mothers at home who turned out just fine.

In addition Ariana, while I respect your personal opinion about how women/men should act towards one another, I am honestly very surprised. You always struck me as a very strong woman who would take no nonsense from anyone, man or woman. You were one of those few people I have met over the years who would always find the poignant question that would poke holes through my whole discussions/arguments. While I won't go as far to say you're wrong outright, I will express my surprise that you are so...servile. April 17 at 4:28am Unlike You + 1 other Steven Potter Also, Dennis. Good job on having most of your posts being legible. I'm proud son. April 17 at 4:28am Like Ariana Lockington + 1 other Rhonda LaFleur What a great write up! I wish I was able to stay home with all my kids but I was the single mom by choice because of differences then I had the chance to stay home and it was great! Then I went back to work and I do believe the learning center we paid was a great experience for my child. I really liked that you are diverse enough to quote the Bible in your "opinion paper " as well. I personally weighed the cost of everything and the interactions we both benefited from was a good thing. Not everything was gum drops and roses but I did my best. I really love that all the back and forth idealism that has been said about your post has been done by young adults that probably don't have children or tremendous obligations put on them. To say that someone is wrong or out of line for expressing their views as she has done here doesn't make your view correct - you all seem to be expressing your PERSONAL views with regard to what was stated instead of really putting thought into your post. For all of you that have issues with the direction and voice of this "opinion " you should spend 6 months in a stay at home mom's shoes and then come back and post your opinion. To have a belief in a higher power is a good thing - we all need something toque April 17 at 7:40am Like 1 Rhonda LaFleur To believe in * to get us though life!

April 17 at 7:40am Like Ariana Lockington I will not take nonsense from anyone. Ever. And each woman is to be subject to ONE mate. Not subject to ALL men. So there is no reason for me to serve anyone but my ONE mate, and I have no intention of doing so. That being said, were my man giving instructions to do something sinful/illegal, there is a higher authority that I can go to. A man's leadership is DERIVED, not INHERENT. So if he is doing illegal actions, I have the government. If he is being sinful, I could go to the church and we could start church discipline. There is always a chain of command.

Even if it was....tough so to say.... I appreciate all opinions on this subject. April 17 at 8:33am Like Kelly Crosby Thank you, Susan and Rhonda, for your input as mothers. I am so intrigued by the passion of these posts from people that don't yet have children.

I am a little disheartened that the comments here got so off topic and pretty hurtful. I have to say - as a very proud mom, who stayed home and then worked outside of home, my children taught me a LOT.. One of the most important things I learned is to respect people..Respect their wishes and beliefs. Encourage those you love. If they have different opinions or beliefs, learn from them. I am not insinuating anyone has to agree with or go along with anyone else's choices, but I surely think listening and respecting to others - and not hurting them - is a good start.

Ariana - I am sad that you got bashed for speaking your opinion and thoughts. :(

I hope that before some of the people on here do have children they learn to accept and appreciate differences with respect, whether they stay home or not. April 17 at 8:43am Like 1 Marybeth Baumgartner I know that I said I'd be out of here, but one of my huge pet peeves is this fallacy that the Bible is the source of morals, or should be consulted as some sort of moral guidebook. It's not. Our morals

inform how we read the Bible, not the other way around. Do we not kill people just because it's written in the Bible? Of course not. The Bible has been used to argue for certain moral decisions, sure, but it's important to note that it's historically been used to back both sides of an argument, at times, such as with slavery, or interracial marriage, or, as it is now, with accepting or denying gay marriage. We pick and choose the bits we agree with that fit our morals; that's extremely telling when it comes to the question of whether our morality has emerged from the Bible. Also, the fact that, for the most part, non-Christian countries have emerged with relatively similar laws and morals is another nail in that coffin. Christianity may have made it easier to get certain laws past in the West, but to claim that it's the source of any of our morals is a huge jump.

Also, just because Christianity has had an influence on western civilization doesn't mean that it should have had one, or that invoking it now should be an effective and accepted strategy in a general argument. Especially when, as I have mentioned here, there are no reasons to believe the quotes beyond "well, it's the Bible." If there were reasoning to support the contents of the quotes, I'd be speaking out about it much less.

And, honestly, since there seems to be this odd assumption about what I think about your beliefs: I couldn't care less. Believe what you want to; it's your business, not mine. I might not understand it, but I'm not going to mock you for it. But, believe me, I will say something if your beliefs infringe on the rights of others. More to the point, though--please don't assume that my lack of religion automatically makes me such-and-such. Generalizations are, unsurprisingly, more hurtful than helpful, in most cases. April 17 at 10:23am Unlike You like this Dawn Erskine I posted something earlier but it didn't go through, I guess. my first response is that for most people, it is entirely unrealistic for some families to have anyone stay at home, because they both need to work to feed themselves and their children. My second one adresses assumed gender roles. I recall a previous post, Ariana, that said you didn't want to ever enforce gender stereotypes on your children, but expecting men and women to grow up into these "nurturer and provider" roles directly contradicts that. Finally, I leave with a hypothetical question. Who takes the leadership in a homosexual couple raising a child? Or shall we simply not let them raise children because it's agains a religion? Eitherway, I respect anyones choice in how they choose to raise their children and run their families, as I expect them to respect mine.

April 17 at 10:31am Unlike You + 3 others Michelle LaFleur Masoka I am SOOOO proud of you Ariana that you had the courage and fire to post something that may not be seen as appropriate to all but non the less, expresses your opinion. I wonder how many of the outraged responses are from parents. Freedom of religion allows you and anyone else to quote any religious text you should choose. You happened to choose the most printed book in history... the Bible. I did not see you trying to convert anyone, simply showing how LONG your feelings have been shared. As a mother who works out of the house with a stay at home DAD, I think having a parent in the home with the children is amazing. Ray and I have taken turns as to who was working and who was home with the kids abut we made sure that our kids came first... not the almighty dollar... which seem to be many people's main goal. What happens when you climb that ladder and your kids want nothing to do with you because you made it clear what was more important?? To all of the close minded people who had the NERVE to post a negative comment about someone else's opinion; do you have kids? Do know the struggle between work and home and how hard it can be to find a balance? Work late or lose the job and go to my kids... recital, game, practice, spelling bee... whatever. Once again, Ariana, I am always proud of you. Regardless if I agree with whatever your point it, I am proud for you to be the woman who would rather be hated for what she is than loved for what she is not! April 17 at 10:49am Like Ariana Lockington + 1 other Bill McDonald As I read this I have one question that comes to mind for all whom are Lots of comments, read a lot, but not all. But let me get in here just a bit. First, (not an attack, but a valid question for everyone in this conversation, especially the more heated contributors...) What qualifies your opinion? As Kelly pointed out, there are a lot of opinions coming from those w/o kids and unmarried (that's only a guess). Myself, as a father of two, soon to be three, married for almost ten years, and sole provider for my family... I'll throw out a few things. April 17 at 10:49am Like 3 Ariana Lockington Kelly: Rhonda is my mother, and Susan is my non-blood mother. So their input is great, as is yours. :) I am over being hurt, so its whatever.

I just wanted to throw out that I am not saying working moms NEVER work. I am not a legalist, so not everything has to be one way. There are exceptions. However, most don't have one. That's all I am trying to say.

Quit throwing hypotheticals. I am only talking about one thing here. Homosexual couples, single moms, etc. all can be discussed in a later discussion, which I am sure I will get yelled at for as well. April 17 at 11:06am Like Jon Scalsky ok I have to go to the bridge so Ill be back. Im going to be taking pretty much everyones stance here. Everyone has a point in some form or another but it will take me a while to plan out all this. April 17 at 11:07am Like Bill McDonald Bible - First, from a biblical perspective, be weary of implying the bible "commands" women not to work. It says very clearly that they should be taking care of the family and be mindful of the home. In some situations, to live this out may require them to work. Men are charged to provide for their families, but this doesn't forbid women from working. It just means that from a biblical perspective, a mother's priority needs to be husband, children and home.

However, note that in context, this is also mentioned in connection to not being a slanderer, gossip and busy body. All of the women during first century Israel were stay at home moms. However, the instruction wasn't intended to say "stay home and don't go to work," it was to instruct them to be mindful of their homes and families. Here's a modern day example. Good Christian mom's stay home? But for what purpose? To sit on Facebook all day, to watch Oprah and gab it up with the other stay at home moms? No. There is nothing godly or biblical about that, even though they are staying home. The point is this - Moms, your responsibility is to care for, nurture, teach your children. Wives, your responsibility is to care for your husband. Be supportive of him. It should be obvious, but it's often not stated, so yes, the husband and father's responsibility likewise is to care for his children, teaching them, building them up, while selflessly and sacrificially loving your wife.

Now, here's the deal. You can be a wonderfully godly women who is adorned in righteousness and work. You can also be a stay at home mom who is ungodly and unrighteous, despite the cross around your neck.

i could go on a few more tangents about the biblical side of things, but I won't... for now. April 17 at 11:10am Like Ariana Lockington I apologize for the word "commands". I changed it in my word document, but not here. April 17 at 11:12am Like Courtney Corcoran Well. According to everyone who calls Marybeth and I out for not yet being mothers, Newsflash; We're still women. And Ariana isn't either, so by that logic, her opinion is also invalid.

For the record however, I have a younger brother and sister that I have had to regularly step in and take on the mommy role for. I practically raised my sister to the point where she would call me mommy, and called her mother by her first name. Now I'm currently babysitting for a living, taking care of a beautiful one year old boy. My shifts range from starting at 5 am, to not ending until midnight. Each shift is about 10-12 hours, so I spend the majority of the day with him. [Because of his mothers work schedule] I have A LOT of experience raising children considering I'm not a biological mother.

That being said, just because I don't have children of my own right now does not mean I never will. Do I not have the right to have opinions on children because I don't have any? Really guys? Well then by golly, you guys better stop having opinions on other religions, races and every other human being other than yourself, because you haven't experience it for yourself.

I'm not married either, but I do have opinions on marriage. I know how my relationship with my boyfriend is currently, and no piece of paper is going to tell me I suddenly need to change. Apply the same logic to parenthood. Yeah, shit changes when you have kids. It's life altering, but I'm not going to put my life on hold because of a child. Mark and I will choose when to have a child, and that will happen when we are both ready. Financially, emotionally, and in every way. If one of us wants to stay at home with the children, so be it. That's a decision we will make together, and not just do what the bible says.

I'd honestly love to be a stay at home mom, but Mark and I have plans. We want to travel cross country in the Nova, and go to car shows. We want to

really enjoy our own lives before we give someone else life. If we decide we want to scrap the cross country idea and move to Japan, so be it. Whatever we choose to do, we are going to LIVE first, procreate later. I'm not saying we're going to put it off forever and party our whole lives. That's the opposite of what I'm saying. We plan to do things right. I'll put my kid before myself absolutely, but not until I'm ready to do so. April 17 at 11:21am Like Marybeth Baumgartner likes this Ariana Lockington If that works for you, and that is what you want, then do it. But not everyone wants to continue life that way. April 17 at 11:39am Like Courtney Corcoran That's the whole point, choice. April 17 at 11:51am Like Marybeth Baumgartner + 1 other Bryan Crosby I would just like to apologize to Ariana because it seems the comments about her post have gone on almost every tangent and not really hit on the purpose if the note. All of us have mentioned it but focused on our own religious and moral ideas. I believe the idea of the note was to prove that a stay at home mom if doing it correctly is working, and working hard. I won't beat you down with my beliefs but I hold a strong conviction of how I want my family set up. I applaud Ariana in putting up such a debated topic. Courtney and Marybeth I believe while you might not agree with my views when going back through the note itself, (feel free to take out the Bible verses) Ariana is trying to prove that being a stay at home mom is tough. Courtney you've mentioned several times that you work at a daycare and helped raise siblings, while not having children of your own if you were to imagine the children you've cared for as your own you'd agree that being a stay at home mom is hard work. I wish that all of us, myself included didn't spend so much time focusing on the extra of the note and focus on the heart of the matter. April 17 at 12:29pm Like 1 Marybeth Baumgartner See, my problems with the essay are twofold:

1) You seem to demonize mothers who choose to work instead of staying at home. I know that you have said that mothers can work if they want to but you also make it abundantly clear that you don't think working mothers are a good idea for almost everyone. I don't think you have a right to tell a woman how to live her life or how to raise her kids, as long as she and her kids are healthy and happy. If this essay were solely attacking the idea that

stay-at-home mothers are lazy, I'd be behind it 100%. But you go past that into saying what mothers should do, even though mothers are just as diverse in interests, personalities, and goals as any other person. They know themselves and their families better than anyone, and they should be able to make this decision without scorn from anyonebe it scorn from people vilifying stay-at-home mothers or scorn from essays like this that make working moms out to be lazy, uncaring, and terrible mothers. We need to stop targeting women for making decisions and instead value that very ability the ability (and right) to choose.

2) As is probably more clear that point 1, this entire argument relies on extremely dated, sexist assumptions and proscribes sexist demands on mothers. That's a problem, because it just pushes away the goal of equality and can do huge damage to all the work we've done so far to achieve equality. Women are no more naturally nurturing than men, and assuming otherwise is to hurt both women and men. Women are just as capable of choosing what they want in life as men are, so telling them that it's their responsibility (and only theirs) to give up their career to care for their children, not their husband's, is pretty backward. Caring for their children is not solely the mother's job. Most of these points are just repeating prior posts, but I think repeating them may clarify the problems a bit more. April 17 at 12:34pm Unlike You like this Courtney Corcoran I never said it wasn't hard work. On the contrary, I understand EXACTLY how much work it can be. I agree wholeheartedly with Marybeth, and she just expressed the point I've been trying to get across this whole time. April 17 at 1:19pm Like Michelle LaFleur Masoka Ariana, I get it. I see you have an opinion as well and I am proud of you for not going off on tirades about not agreeing to other opinions. You are an amazing woman! I love being a mom and when I can be home with the kids... it is amazing. It is not a sexist thing... it is a mom thing. April 17 at 1:50pm Like 1 Marybeth Baumgartner I feel that I may need to clarify that last point a bit further, since as it is it may not quite capture the "outdated" bit I mentioned, and some people might misconstrue what I mean by "sexist":

Reading this argument makes me think of the '50s. If you know anything

about feminism, you'd know that the '50s are held up as one of the worst decades for women's rights in the past centuryand that the pervasive thoughts of the '50s are what kick-started the feminist movement as we are now familiar with it (i.e., the second wave). When you praise women for doing the "right thing" by staying in the house, caring for children, and cooking for their hard-working husband who puts the food on the table, and then start insulting women who dare to venture into the public, traditionally male space of the work force when they could be doing the "proper" thing and staying at home, I have a difficult time seeing how you're now advocating for a return to the gender roles of the '50swhich would be a huge step back for women's rights and equality on the whole. (If it helps put things into perspective, during the '50s, women were berated for feeling that taking care of the house and children wasn't fulfilling, and many wives ended up living unhappily, stuck inside the house because of society's judgments.)

That's the kind of thought process I see behind this. You're telling women (not all women, yes, but most women) that, to be good mothers, they have to abandon their standing in the public sphere in favor of doing what is "proper": taking care of the house and raising their children. If you were just arguing that one <i>parent</i> should stay home to watch the children, then I would have no problem, because you aren't assuming anything about the genders. But, because you do specify that only the mothers should be the ones staying home and you never even mention the possibility of the husband being the stay-at-home parent, it's rather easy to see that sexist assumptions are afoot.

Now, I have absolutely no problem if a mother chooses to stay at home and take care of her kids. But I do have a problem once you start telling every single mother and potential mother that she, with very few exceptions, <i>should</i> stay home, that she <i>should</i> abandon her career, that she <i>should</i> be happy about taking care of her kids 24/7. Again, while some women might like staying home, turning her attention to her family, and being around her children 24/7, not all women doand they should be able to choose to go to work if they want to, without anyone judging them for it. The act of a mother deciding to stay home isn't sexist; the declaration that all or most mothers should is, and just invites the problems of the '50s all over again. April 17 at 2:57pm Unlike You + 1 other Kelly Crosby Ohhh - I was so hoping nobody would say they know just what it's like to be a mom. Courtney - caring for someone else's child is awesome and I admire you for doing that, but it is in NO way the same as being a

parent. When I was young and naive, I thought the same thing until I had my first child. I won't go on too much of a tangent about that as it is also off topic, but please please don't insult mothers by saying you know EXACTLY how much work it can be or that you have been like a mom to a child. You will hopefully someday understand. As i have said - I think these are all choices. Bill is so right and makes such a good point - staying home does not make you a good mom. If it's not for you, don't do it. I find it so interesting how this turned into all this. Put aside religion, put aside whether we stay home with our kids or not... At the end of the day - have you been a good person? Have you treated everybody with respect, despite their differences? The parents in this discussion will agree with me, I think... Your children will have differences of opinion from you. Embrace that - in your friends also. April 17 at 3:23pm Like Courtney Corcoran </html>

That's where you're wrong. I have been a parent. I may not have given birth to my sister, but I was the only parent she had for YEARS. It was no different than adoption. I stepped in and did what I had to do. I cooked her meals, played with her, checked her homework when she was done, I drew her baths, and tucked her into bed at night while my parents were busy doing other things. I put my life on hold to parent a child that wasn't even mine, and I've done it several times throughout her life, and I will do it again in a heartbeat. Don't you dare pretend to know my relationship with her, and don't you dare tell me I don't know what it's like to be a parent, because I've been a parent. I didn't give birth to her, but I fucking RAISED her. April 17 at 4:33pm Like Kelly Crosby Ariana, I am truly sorry this discussion turned to immaturity and crude comments from people. Perhaps your next essay could be on how to hold a mature and respectful debate. I do believe someone may have proven your point on why children need their parents around more. I very much admire your class and dignity you have held through this. :) April 17 at 4:42pm Like Courtney Corcoran The only immaturity here has been from taking things

personally, and using petty bullshit to support their arguments. The majority of all of this has been well thought out, developed arguments. April 17 at 4:45pm Like Marybeth Baumgartner Kelly, you can't use patronization in an argument. If anyone's showing how not to have an argument, it's you; you're making assumptions about other people's experiences and, when they point out that you're wrong about your assumptions, you pat them on the head and tell them to go play with the other children.

If you want to continue debating properly, address her points instead of ignoring them while hiding on the "higher ground." April 17 at 4:45pm Unlike You + 1 other Kelly Crosby Thank you for that lesson, Marybeth. I truly don't think any of this is about the actual matter at hand and I really don't care to hurt Ariana by buying in to it. I support her and her choices and respect her opinion. I don't know Cour tney, but I have taken care of other children as if they were my own. It is different. When I finished my day's work with my children, I then had to pay for the home we were in, the food we ate, etc.. I don't think that is Courtney's case, is it? I could go on with ther differences, but I feel like this has become immature "chosen sides" and "attacks" instead of adults listening to other points of view and growing and learning from them. Pity... There us so much we could learn. April 17 at 5:13pm Like Courtney Corcoran This entire debate over my personal life is disgusting. I've been raising my sister off and on since I was 12. I gave up my social life, I ended a relationship, and I gave up part of my childhood for her benefit. If that's not parenting in

your eyes, you need a reality check. There are two [maybe more] people in this debate that can without a doubt vouch that I've given everything for my sister time and time again. When you take a child on as your own, you become a parent, whether you gave birth to them or not. I am just now getting on my feet and getting my life together because of the situation I was put in. Your argument that I didn't have bills to pay is invalid because this started when I was 12. I given up a hell of a lot more for my sister than my paychecks.

This isn't even including the things I've done to help raise my brother. Though I raised my sister a lot longer, my brother requires a lot of work. His childhood has been riddled with breathing and heart problems due to the fact that he was born four months premature. He is borderline autistic, and requires very specific discipline. He is NOT like other children, you can't just take away a toy and call it punishment. So, not only do I have experience raising a child, but I also have experience helping to raise a special needs child. I won't claim that he is completely dependent on others, his needs are not that great, but he cannot function on his own.

But because these children didn't come out of my vagina you think I don't know anything about raising children. Get over yourself. I'm done with this bullshit, I have much better things to do than defend myself in an argument with people that won't listen to any form of reason. April 17 at 5:48pm Like Kelly Crosby And this....is parenting. :) A fun lesson for those who plan to be mothers, stay-at home or not. When one of your kids is being mean to another, the easiest fix is to distract them and get them mad at you instead. I can handle anyone getting wound up at me. . . but don't like to see them hurting my kids. I consider Ariana as one of my extra kids. April 17 at 8:36pm via mobile Like Marybeth Baumgartner Split into two posts, because my verbosity is ridiculous:

So, I was originally going to stay out of this particular argument, because

arguments based on experiences tend to be particularly messy, but some of the attitudes and logic used ha...See More April 18 at 4:40am Unlike You like this Marybeth Baumgartner So, what would be necessary to successfully argue that Courtney's experience isn't a mothering experience? Well, you'd need to define what a "mothering experience" is in the first place; you need to make a list of characteristics of the exp erience that all mothers experience and that describe only the mothering experience and no other experience. Now, I've tried to think of a few, but none of them seem to stick for your argument. I'm skipping the obvious ones (like biological parentage) for reasons of space, although this comment is going to be a monster whatever I do.

Option 1 (and the characteristic that you proposed above): You have to be financially responsible for your child.

Verdict: No, that doesn't hold at all. What if you're a stay-at-home mom, as Ariana's note encourages most women to be? A stay-at-home mom isn't making money, and so she can't be paying for her home, or her food, or anything else. Does that mean that stay-at-home mothers aren't mothers? Of course not.

Option 2: You need to be legally responsible for your child.

Verdict: Nope, doesn't work either. What if a woman had and raised a child, and the child was never documented by the state or government? Is she a mother? Of course she is; thus, this doesn't hold.

Option 3: You need to raise your child from infancy.

Verdict: Definitely not. Kids are adopted at all ages; their adopted mother is still their mother, no matter when the kid was adopted, be it at infancy or

in their late teens.

Option 4: You need to make sacrifices in order to care for your child.

Verdict: This definitely seems to hold, but it doesn't exclude Courtney's experience from the mothering experience, so this doesn't help your argument.

Option 5: You need to be one of the primary caretakers of the child.

Verdict: Whether this is true depends on how you'd respond to the following: If a woman has a child and the child is almost immediately put up for adoption, is the child's "biological mother" a mother? If yes, then this doesn't hold true; if no, Courtney's experience is still a mothering experience, based on what she's described. Either way, it doesn't help your case.

Option 6: You need to hold your child's needs above your own.

Verdict: Again, depends on what you think holds true for certain hypothetical situations. Would one selfish action suddenly stop a woman from being a mother? If yes, then this is the closest I can come to a possible characteristic that might (emphasis on the might) be a good way to distinguish between mothering and non-mothering experiences. However, it still doesn't help you at all, because Courtney did and likely still does hold her siblings' needs above her own, as she's stated in past comments.

Now, if you can think of anything that will fit your experience (and any other mothering experience) but not Courtney's, then you could have a case. But, as it stands, it doesn't look good for you.

And, even if you disagree with everything I've said here, unless you have a reason beyond "No, they're different because they're different," there is nothing more anyone can say to you. When you fail to use legitimate

reasoning in a debate, it normally tends to fall apart, which is what has happened so far. Circular debates are useless, on the whole, and are much more effective at bringing out the worst in people than reaching any sort of conclusion.

On yet another note, if anyone's still reading this (which, if you are, you deserve a medal): Just because someone gets angry doesn't mean that you can ignore their arguments. Saying that anger is unwelcome in debates is like saying passion is also unwelcome. Anger and passion can help making debates stronger, not make them weaker. Not to mention, this belief that angry people aren't logical is absolutely ridiculous. People get angry because you're arguing about their lives. If someone's saying that women are naturally inferior to men, hell yes am I going to get angry. If someone's trying to enact laws that reinforce racist beliefs and actions, of course people who confront racism in their everyday lives are going to get angry, especially when the people passing those laws have never had to face what they're condoning. To say that you should never be angry in a debate is simply a way to throw out opposition, especially opposition to ideas that directly impact the lives of a group of people. Of course anger can be unhelpful in debate when it's at high enough levels, but just because someone expresses their anger in some waybe it through cursing or raising their voicedoesn't mean that you can throw out their opinion or argument as worthless. For example, I could take any argument made by any applauded speechwriter or philosopher and shout it at the top of my lungs, cursing every other breath, and it will still contain the same amount of logic as it would if read "reasonably." Anger and cursing mean nothing. Stop acting as though it ruins an argument, or makes someone childlike and therefore illogical.

IN SUMMARY: Stop it with the ad hominem attacks and the use of the "angry people can't debate!" fallacy and instead turn your attention to fixing your own shoddy, circular logic. Also, I need to learn how to be brief. April 18 at 4:40am Unlike You + 1 other Isaac Indgjer I like turtles. April 18 at 8:53am Unlike You + 3 others Courtney Corcoran Thank you, Marybeth. April 18 at 10:21am Like Jon Scalsky

Im leaning towards siding with Marybeth and Courntey on this one and to a larger extent Isaa. I too enjoy a good turtle now and again. But that aside this is rediculously long and I have no way of keeping up. So short and simple, both sides...See More April 18 at 12:45pm Unlike You + 1 other Ariana Lockington You are not a mother to your sister. Just like I am not a mother to my brothers, even though I did a lot of mothering for them. I completely get that being a mother takes on a whole new meaning when you have your own kids. Simple as that.

I read everything [so I guess I get a medal too], and its gotten too patronizing and silly for me to even believe. And its EVERYONE that is being a bit patronizing.

I have an EXTREMELY hard time believing that my original point of "stay at home mothers being a hard job if done right, and that I feel like that is how it should be done" has dissolved into petty arguments, name calling, swearing, and mediocre attempts to maintain grip on that last thread of right-ness that everyone once had. Everyone, for the most part, is missing the initial point, hence why there is so much off-topic debate.

So, really, this whole thing should be ended. There is too much name calling and taking sides. We are not grade school kids, so stop being the proverbial "meanie head"s and just let it go and move on to something else. I am SO tired of reading all of this because it is beyond exhausting. It is mentally, physically, and emotionally draining to go through this because no one seems to get the point.

And it is draining that my two closest friends have decided to make me the bad guy, and be "ASHAMED" of my feelings on a topic. Pity. April 18 at 4:03pm Like Adam Sickle To all of this, I just have one thing to say. Warning right off the bat, it's not

related to the note's topic or any points that have been made in the above comments.

My one statement is that I dislike online/Facebook arguments/debates su ch as this one because of what they often/mostly cause and that is, a lot of displeasure and further conflicts between those involved. This is the internet, we all know it pretty well and we know what it can and cannot provide/do.

One of the main problems with having something like this on Facebook/the internet is that you're missing something and that is the face to face body language, tone, and other key elements of communication that I believe should be present for an event such as this one to properly occur. I'm sure we can all agree that these elements of communication play a large role in the responses we give to statements/debate points. I feel as though this whole thing could have gone much differently or at least had much different results had it happened in person as opposed to in the comments of a FB note.

When you're sitting behind a computer typing up a response, you have much more time to put a whole lot of thought, logic and reasoning into your points without the worry of actually having to see the physical response of the person/people we're debating with. This often leads to situations like the one we see here, where people make valid points and logical statements but they end up harming each other emotionally and doing damage to the friendship/acquaintance that they have. So in the end, yes you may have won the argument/debate or you may feel that way or at least feel that your points were true, but where does that leave you?

Great, you won an internet argument and now your friend thinks you don't like them. Is this actually true? How does your friend really feel? My point is, text can't properly convey how people really feel. Text leaves it up to the reader to interpret and get the emotional/physical side out of what's being said, instead of the person making the statement being able to convey it. What seems to have happened in these comments is a lot of YELLING, missing the point, misunderstanding, and a lot of other negative nonsense that hasn't really gotten anyone anywhere. Now people are hurt, they're upset at each other and they're walking away with how they READ someone else's response instead of how they HEARD it.

I know this is a long comment, but I've been thinking it over the last couple of days as I've watched this whole thing unfold. I stayed out of it to watch it all blow up and see it end up where its at now, where people are drained and disgusted. You want to continue to argue/debate, you go right ahead, I'm not stopping you. You think that this is all silly and that text is the same as speech, more power to you. I urge you however to look at the above comments from an outside standpoint and see what really came of them rather than looking at the valid points you may have made.

As a big caveat to all of this, I'm telling you that this comment I'm making is not meant to condemn the above comments. I am not in anyway stating my position on the debate nor am I writing this comment to spark a new debate. If you read this and feel like arguing what I've said, then you've missed the whole point of what I've written. Don't put something on here expecting me to come back and respond to an argument for or against what I've said because I'm not going to respond to it. If you want to continue the debate being held over the topic of the note or talk with me about what I've put here, I suggest doing it in person because it will be much more constructive rather than destructive and that's the whole point of my comment.

TL;DR: Don't argue/debate on the internet, it often doesn't end well. April 18 at 5:00pm Unlike You + 1 other Marybeth Baumgartner Ariana, you can't make claims about other people's experiences. You don't know what they've been through, so you can't make assumptions. And, if what you've read doesn't convince you that Courtney knows what it's like to be a mother, think of why instead of just citing your own experiences. Your experiences are not the same as Courtney's, so you can't make judgments about whether her experience caring for her siblings is similar to your experience caring for your siblings.

Honestly, people keep saying that insults are being thrown around, but I have seen very, very few my entire time being here. Could some examples

be cited? I may have missed a few, but this account of them seems extremely hyperbolic. As for the swearing, I'd point back to the post I just made, but it's rather intimidating, so I'll restate it here: Swearing does not deconstruct an argument or strip it of its logic. Swearing does not mean you can ignore someone's point. Swearing is not contradictory to debate. And how is an argument petty when its resolution could impact millions of people? Defining what a mother is can be just as big an impact to society as imposing or destroying sexist views. These aren't arguments about who wore which dress better and such-and-such events. These arguments have weight.

Also, the thing about debates? You're required to take a side. To say that a debate needs to end because people are taking sides is impossible, because that's necessary for any debate to exist in the first place. Otherwise, it'd be a chaotic jumble of shouting about nothing.

And, Ariana, I must repeat: IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION TO ATTACK YOU. We are attacking your problematic views. There is a huge difference. I'm a bit sad to find out that you hold sexist views in the first place, because this is honestly reminiscent of the '50s, but I'm not going to hold it over your head. I just want you to realize how destructive and backward these views are. April 18 at 5:09pm Like Marybeth Baumgartner And Adam, while I think having the discussion face-to-face would have different results, I don't know if it'd make it better or not. I know that I probably wouldn't be saying much of anything, because I have a good deal of social anxiety, a nd the worst of it comes out when I'm in an argumentand, even if I don't end up saying anything in an argument, my lack of response normally eats at me for days or weeks, depending on the topic. So, I definitely appreciate this particular medium. The lack of tone the internet provides can help reduce the very obvious shifts in tone in face-to-face debates, which can help prevent things from escalating as quickly. Yelling online is much less intimidating than having someone spitting in your face, just like it's much easier to argue when your opponent isn't visibly scoffing at every point you make, or rolling their eyes when you're talking, or belittling you in a similar way.

So, no, I don't think we need to discard internet discussion. Everything has

its pros and cons, and the existence of cons doesn't mean we should throw something out.

Also, no, I don't expect you to respond to all that. I just find it frustrating when an entire way to debate (or an entire way to live your life, or an entire way to do anything, really) is struck down and degraded, especially when the reasoning behind the decision to throw it out doesn't make much sense. (And the dangers of my taking a Philosophy course for the semester become very clear.)

However, I do agree with your statement that people have been misreading comments, and that's a problem. Some people weren't clear, and some actions came across in ways they weren't intended; it was a mess all around, and I hope that the misunderstandings can be cleared up.

Also, since I've had issues with this before, I wanted to state it up-front, since it may lead to further misunderstandings: I don't yell, generally speaking, in debates on or off the internet. When I use caps lock, I use it to emphasize certain parts of my arguments, because Facebook doesn't offer italics as part of its package. I have no idea if that was grating against anyone, or if people were misunderstanding parts of my comments because of that, but I thought it'd be a good idea to add a sort of a disclaimer, just in case. April 18 at 7:05pm Unlike You like this Courtney Corcoran Marybeth, you kicked major ass here. Anyone that chooses to argue with you here on out doesn't understand logic, and probably shouldn't be raising children. I really enjoyed the amout of sense and logic in Marybeth's posts, and the complete lack of logic in the opposition. Which, the people that oppose, have chosen to replace with contradictions to their own arguments, and have continually chosen to cover their ears and scream. They are children that think being louder, and not listening to the other side means they win. While I would say that this whole thing makes me have little faith in humanity, Marybeth's points have simultaneously restored my faith. I wish more people were like you in logic and in heart.

That being said, I strongly encourage anyone who wishes to further this discussion to add me on facebook. I'll keep it up as long as you want. To play off of what Adam has said, I would love to see any of you say this shit to my face. In person. I just dare you.

With that, I bid you all a very fond farewell. April 18 at 11:44pm Like Kelly Crosby As I have said from square one - - I believe staying at home or working out of the home is a personal choice. As is religion... And as I also said - My hope is that no matter your choice, I hope that people treat others with respect and kindness and appreciate each other's differences. ~~Tomorrow is not guaranteed people~~ If you truly care about someone, respect and appreciate their choices and don't hurt them because they have different beliefs or directions they choose to go. I am grateful EVERY DAY that although my sons and I didn't always agree on every single thing, we were kind and thoughtful and respectful to each other. I wish the same for friends... Would anyone like any of these words on here to be their last to their friend? My son's last words to me nine months ago were, "I love you mom"...and mine to him - "I love you too" We did not know those would be our last words.. Please be kind people... April 19 at 7:44am Like Marybeth Baumgartner I don't know if this'll help provide some insight into my side of things, Kelly, but this is how I see it:

I agree with nearly everything you just said, with one caveat: When someone holds a belief that they want to impose on a large group of people and that belief has the potential to be damaging, I think it's my duty to tell them that that belief is hurtful, and, for that reason, wrong.

And I know I might be coming off as a broken record at this point, but

offending and insulting people was not my intention here, and I'm sorry to anyone who has felt targeted along the way; I've tried to keep my ire and the foci of my arguments limited to specific views and arguments, but it's always possible that some spilled out where it wasn't supposed to. However, I still hold that the assumptions behind this argument needed to be pointed out, becauseagain, broken record herethey are potentially very dangerous. This isn't something I can ignore, and I don't know if it could be addressed in any way that wouldn't upset someonebut that doesn't mean that it's sacred and shouldn't be challenged. Just like how I wouldn't stand for a friend ranting on about how sick it is that all these people can come out as being gay on television and corrupt all these children, or a friend complaining about how interracial marriage is one scourge on the nation, or a friend joking about blowing up a mosque as "revenge" for 9/11, I can't stand for a friend calling for women essentially to return to the station they held and fought tooth-andnail to escape from in the '50s. And I'm sorry if that offends anyone, too, but that's my line in the stand, and I hope my friends will do the same for me, if I ever start espousingor currently espousebeliefs that will hurt others. April 19 at 10:41am Like Marybeth Baumgartner sand*, not stand

Also, I feel it's important to point out: If a friend wants to live their life according to a certain belief, no matter how problematic it may be (such as submitting to your husband's will whenever a particularly difficult decision has to be made), I won't say anything. That's one of the ways I agree with your post, Kelly; it's their belief, and I can appreciate that they view the world in a different way than I do. But, once someone starts advocating that other people shouldn't be given that right to choose and be differentthat other people should, or ought to, or must agree with and follow a specific belief or way of life, it's open season. Once someone starts infringing on other people's right to choose and imposing hurtful beliefs on them, my line has been crossed, and I am morally required to say something, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. April 19 at 10:48am Like Ariana Lockington Courtney: I would say everything I have said here, and more, to anyone in person, and that is a proven fact at this point.

Secondly, you have no right to say that I (or anyone who was against you and Marybeth) are not fit mothers. There a re some people who are clearly not fit to be parents, we all know this. But no one here is an unfit parent, including you and Marybeth. But because I supposedly hold "sexist" views I am an unfit mother? And so is Kelly? That is so untrue its not even believable. Kelly has raised two beautiful sons who are wonderful men. I knew both of them, though only one very briefly. So, there goes that statement you had to say.

My views are not sexist. My views are simply my own, and the vies of some others, that happen to be backed by a text that I hold as positive and true. I believe that a man should provide for his family --physically, mentally, emotionally, financially, etc.-- and that a woman should be homeward focused and willingly and lovingly submit to the leadership of her husband. That is how I feel.

I am not legalistic in any regard. There are exceptions to most everything. Sometimes this is not the case, or cannot be the case. I am not saying single moms or working moms are any less valuable or productive. I am not saying that under some circumstances, stay at home dads are not acceptable/necessary.

If I originally came off as saying anything but the above, I apologize. I never intended to let this get this far. So, if you two feel that you are the only logical ones and that you have won, examine the above statement of "You may have won, but at what cost?" How is your friendship with me damaged? How is my friendship with you damaged? Can it be fixed? If not, was being right or winning WORTH the loss of our friendship that has lasted through much harder things over the past eight years? So is winning worth it? I am so tired of dealing with this that its is almost sickening. So, if you want to talk to me, you both have my number, lets get together and talk if you feel up to it. If not, I will be waiting for when you are. April 19 at 11:18am Like Marybeth Baumgartner Ariana, I'm confused. Did someone call you an unfit mother at some point? When did that happen? I'm quite lost, I must admit. If someone has called you an unfit mother, though, they have no right to do so. When I say you hold

sexist views, that is not an attack on whether you are a fit mother. It's a statement of your views, not on motherhood. If having problematic views were grounds for being unfit for either motherhood or fatherhood, then 99.9% of mothers and fathers would be unfit for doing what they're doing, and that's obviously not accurate.

As for your views, if you're keeping them to yourself and are going to continue keeping them to yourself and applying only to yourself, I have no problem, and this entire discussion has been pointless. You're free to live your life like this. It's your choice. (Emphasis on choice.) My problem is that you seem to argue that people should believe what you believe, and that's why I've been making as big a fuss as I have been, especially about sexism. If you aren't arguing that, I'd suggest changing your note's rhetoric (specifically the last paragraph) and making a disclaimer that you're not trying to persuade anyone to your side. Also, if you aren't arguing that your views should be imposed on everyone, I'm sorry for upsetting youalthough, if that is the case, your note is rather misleading in its arguments and justifications.

Warning: This paragraph is related to the claim that your views aren't sexist, which isn't accurate. If you don't want to hear me repeating myself, or want to ignore the section to spare feeling targeted for having some problematic beliefs, then you may want to skip this section. But, if you choose to read on, here's a summary of what beliefs you seem to be trying to get everyone to accept: that women/mothers are naturally nurturers in comparison to men; that mothers should, generally speaking, give up their career to stay at home (note: this is primarily based on your last paragraph of your argument, where you tear into people for leaving their kids with "strangers" and being "lazy" by working); that mothers should be the ones to make these sacrifices, not the fathers; that working mothers are "lazy" (if you don't want to belittle them, you should remove that claim); that working mothers should be belittled for leaving their children with "strangers" (again, if you don't want to attack working mothers for what they decide to do, you should remove that point and probably that entire last paragraph). All-in-all, you seem to be calling for a '50s revival. The entire idea that women should be stuck in a house instead of choosing what she wants is sexist, because you don't have the same expectations of men. Full stop. If you can't see how this is sexist, I really don't know what I can do for you. It's unequal. It's holding women to standards that are far different from standards for men. It's taking away a woman's autonomy, her right to choose, her right to live her

lifewhile allowing men to continue choosing how to live their lives however they wish. This is no different from shaming women for being sexually active while encouraging men to continue doing that very thing: It's hypocritical, hurtful, and sexist.

However, as I've said: If you don't mean to impose these beliefs on other people, then I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time, and you should edit your note to make it seem less like a persuasive piece and more like a reflection on your opinions.

Also, this isn't about winning. It's about showing how this note is hurtful and damaging to women. Personally, I consider that to be a very worthy cause, and I'm sorry to have upset you by this, but it's something that needs to be pointed out. I do wish it could've been less intense and that you were less targeted by the responses, but I'm not going to apologize for showing how problematic your note is. (Again, this is all in reference to the way you argued in your original post, since it is what sparked this. If that note is not representative of how you feelthat is, if you do not mean to tell women how to live and you're just talking about how you want to live your lifeI'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and you should probably edit it so you don't seem like you're taking away mothers' right to choose how they mother.)

As for speaking on this, I'll repeat: Social anxiety is a dick. I'd love to talk about this in a hypothetical world where I didn't start shaking, sweating, stuttering, rambling, getting light-headed, having my mind go blank from anxiety, and having my throat close up on me whenever I try to discuss issues like this in person, but we're in the real world, and that entire discussion would be useless from me. I'm not sure if Courtney would fare better, but I know that I definitely wouldn't add much of anything, and I'm sorry that I can't help in that respect. If you want to ignore that any of this happened, hey, that's fine by me; I'm not going to judge you for holding these beliefs, or try to engage you in debating them out-of-the-blue. But if you start telling people that they should hold the beliefs you do, and that they should live their lives a certain way, then I can't promise something like this won't happen again. April 19 at 1:01pm Unlike You like this Ariana Lockington Marybeth, if you look at the first line of Courtney's last post it says "

Marybeth, you kicked major ass here. Anyone that chooses to argue with you here on out doesn't understand logic, and probably shouldn't be raising children." That bas ically States that anyone who has been arguing with you ( ie me and Kelly) is unfit to raise children.

And I am not going to edit the note. I clarified my intent in one of my above posts and that is good enough for me. April 19 at 2:18pm via mobile Like Marybeth Baumgartner likes this Courtney Corcoran I agree with Marybeth. I don't give two shits about you having different beliefs than me. I disagree with Sharon on a lot of political ideas, but we are still friends. What I have a problem with is the blatant sexism, and the claims that wo rking mothers are lazy and don't want to raise their kids, and that daycare is apparently harmful. It isn't about winning or being right, it's about equality for both genders here. I absolutely do not believe in gender roles, and even if you do, imposing them on other people is without a doubt, without any logiccal argument, WRONG. You ask if beign right is worth losign a friendship over. Well, my answer is no. However, I don't care if you're my blood sister, if you don't believe in absolute equality, if you want people to be treated differently and behave differently because of the way they were born, be it gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. I don't want to be your friend. If you personally want to submit to your husband, that's fine. If you think it's the way it should be done simply because you are a woman, and that all women should also do it, that's NOT fine. That's disgusting.

The amount of hypocrisy in this entire debate is just laughable. You say "I'm not sexist" then turn around in the same post and say "But women should submit to their husbands." Hypocrisy. Whether submission comes with or without a conversation or council, it is still submission. I know it's a pretty overused idea, but if your husband wants to kill himself, you, and your children, and you disagree, but even after talking it over and trying to come to an agreement, he won't back down, will you still submit to your husband and let leadership fall to him? Will you still trust him as your leader? I would absolutely hope not. Take a look at what you are really saying here.

And again, as Marybeth said, this is not about winning or being right. If you are simply stating hwo you want to live your life, fine, but if you want to impose this on even a single other person, it was worth all this effort to oppose you.

Now, there are a few reasons I said that anyone who argues with Marybeth from there on out probably shouldn't be raising children. For one, I clearly said not only 'from here on out' implying that that statement only applies to those who contiue to argue with her, as well as saying 'probably shouldn't be raising children.' I don't pretend to know what is best for every child and every family, which is exactly the point I've been trying to express this whole time. No one individual can say what is right for every individual, nor every family. That being said, the reason I said so are as follows; For one, Marybeth has logical, and factually proven her point without a doubt. She has not argued that your way of doing things isn't right for ANYONE, she has simply argued that it is not right for EVERYONE. She has expressed in many words, and in shorter terms that it is no one persons right to claim what is right for every single individual and their families. this wasn't to claim that everyone that commented on this note and disagreed with Marybeth [and I, technically] should never ever have children and should have their current children taken from them. That is a gross misinterpretation. The point I was trying to get across was that people who think they know what is best for everyone, and people that believe in such obvious sexism and absolute gender roles should not be raising children. Parents should guide their children, absolutely, but parents should not force their children to share their same ideals, and brainwash them from a young age to be exactly who the parent wishes them to be. Will you be disappointed in you hypothetical future daughter if she doesn't have much money and has to work to support her family, and has to send her children to day care? Will you be disappointed in your hypothetical future son if he marries a woman who tends to call the shots, or has a marriage based on equality, where no one individual is a leader, but they are instead, a team? I certainly hope this is not the case.

If you choose to allow your children to make up their minds on their own, with helpful guidance, I will support you and them through it all. The same goes for my children, and Marybeth's protential children as well. However, if you want to teach your children that a womans place is home with the kids to cook and clean and make babies, and a man's job is to support them. That a man should get the final say in decisions, don't expect me to be there.

Now, I want to ask you one question. This has been stirring in my mind for a while now, so forgive me if I already asked this, but you mentioned earlier a hypothetical example in which you desire to try for another child, but your hypothetical future husband does not agree. Now, what if it were the other way around? What if your husband wanted to have another child, but you did not? If you could not reach a mutual decision, or somehow meet halfway, would you suffer through 9/10ish months of pregnancy against your will? Would you give birth to another child just because HE wants to? Would you spend the next 20+ years caring for, paying for, and dealing with a child you never wanted in the first place? Would you give up that much more of your life and free time, and your money and health just because you're a woman and men make decisions? April 19 at 3:23pm Like Marybeth Baumgartner likes this Ariana Lockington That's not how it works. If my hypothetical husband wanted another child and I did not, and there was a legit reason, he would lovingly put my needs above his desires and let that desire go. Its not all about what he wants.

Anyway, I rese t what I meant in a post. If you can't understand what I meant and that I think others should do what works for them but I believe my way is best for me, then you don't have to be my friend. We have gone through so much bigger s*** together that this is hardly something to dissolve a friendship for, but that is up to you. I am not going to fight with you anymore. I am so over it. April 19 at 3:45pm via mobile Like Kelly Crosby This is all so incredibly sad. Marybeth and Courtney - I encourage you to go back and read through your posts with an OPEN MIND...(and the capitals are for emphasis - not yelling)... In my opinion, you contradict yourselves over and over again just for the sake of "winning". Marybeth - you say that Ariana can't tell people what to do, yet countless times, you say things like "You can't ..." or "You should..." or "I suggest you...". I don't think you are actually telling anyone what to do - it is just your opinion, I think..? I think the same is with Ariana's posts. I don't think she was ever insinuating anyone HAD to do what she feels is good for her. Courtney - you seem so focused on proving your

point that you are hurting your best friend and sister? For what?? To "prove you are right"? If and when you do become a mother, what if your child decides to become a Christian, or anything else that goes against your beliefs? Would you hurt your child and say you wouldn't be there for her because she has chosen something different from what you feel is right - for you? SO SO sad. April 19 at 4:47pm Like Marybeth Baumgartner Kelly, I'm saying that she shouldn't do what she is doing because she's hurting people, or at least would if she told mothers that they had to stay home with their kids. You have to look at the logic behind the statements to understand the difference. The claim that most mothers should stay at home comes primarily from the Bible and a few arguments based on a couple sexist assumptions. Because sexism isn't logically sound and not all mothers are Christian or accept the parts of the Bible that are cited here, the statement that they should live their lives a certain way is very weak, and the fact that enforcing the belief would hurt many mothers makes it even more so. However, saying that someone shouldn't enforce religious and sexist beliefs on other people is not: It's upholding the right to choose, doesn't hurt anyone (except perhaps the person trying to enforce the views, but honestly, in comparison to the people who'd be hurt as a result of enforcing them, it's negligible), and the logic can be accepted by a large range of people (i.e., agreement wouldn't be along strict religious/racial/gender/etc. lines).

So, yes, you're right to point out that things aren't exactly as clear as "you can't tell people what to do." You can definitely make a case for certain beliefs or actions, but you have to back those by logic that can be accepted by a diverse group of people. Saying that you shouldn't judge mothers for working, just like you shouldn't judge mothers for staying at home? Perfectly fine, because the idea that mothers have to say home is damaging to women and sets feminism back a few decades. Saying that women need to stay home, because that's just women's role and that's how they'd be the most helpful? Not so fine, because it's based on hurtful assumptions and not very convincing logic (namely, "women are women, so they should do this").

Does that help clarify things?

(Also, as I've said multiple times as of late, if all of this is just Ariana's opinion and she's not prescribing the "mothers, stay at home with your kids if you want to be real mothers" standard to other people, I completely agree that there's no argument to be had here. But, if her views lead her to belittling working mothers she meets for their decisions or if she starts telling other people that they have to share her beliefs to be good mothers, then that's where my arguments start applying.)

And Kelly, if you really think Courtney would abandon her child for making a choice that Courtney helped encourage her child to make, I have to question your logic. Of course Courtney would accept her child's choice. Otherwise, she'd just brainwash her kid in the first place. Why would she encourage skepticism and critical thinking just to reject her kid for being skeptical and thinking critically for themselves? That would be terribly cruel, I think we both agree. However, I feel rather safe saying that Courtney would not let her kid try to force their beliefs on other people, which is why both of us are being so vocal here. Our problem isn't people having different beliefs. Our problem is people forcing those beliefs onto people, especially when the people don't want those beliefs or when those beliefs will hurt people. April 19 at 5:09pm Unlike You like this Marybeth Baumgartner Correction: Scratch the "when people don't want those beliefs" bit; that was a lack of foresight on my part. April 19 at 5:15pm Like Kelly Crosby Marybeth - read the second sentence you just posted - "You have to..." I certainly never said or even insinuated that Courtney would do anything wrong or abandon her child. I simply asked..with the hopes that you both might stop an d think, instead of firing back to defend each other. As I said, it is just really sad that Ariana's friends are teaming up with each other to argue every single point made, instead of listening - and accepting - and encouraging. Guess that's just the mom in me.. And no - there is no hidden message there. It just is what it is. I am a mom, and I say that ALL the time.. I don't claim to know any more or less than anyone else in this discussion. I just wish there was more support and understanding and listening and encouragement to go for what you want... April 19 at 5:29pm Like

Marybeth Baumgartner Kelly, I suggest reading what I actually wrote instead of repeating yourself. I addressed why there's a difference between my saying "you need to," "you should," etc. and what I was arguing against. If you have a problem with the logic I w as using, address that. But don't try to muddle this discussion with unnecessary comments that just repeat what you've just said.

Also, Kelly, at the very least, you insinuated that Courtney would do something wrong, because you questioned whether she would (or at least has the capacity to) "hurt [her child] child and say [she] wouldn't be there for [her child] because [the child] has chosen something different from what [Courtney] feel[s] is right." So, no, I don't think you're quite right to say that you didn't insinuate she would do anything wrong.

Based on your wording, it sounded as though you were entertaining the possibility that Courtney would verbally attack her own child for being independent. If you meant to compare accepting her child's beliefs to what you think should be going on in this entire debate, then you may want to be more careful about how you word things in the future, because your comment sounded more like you were accusing Courtney of potentially emotionally abusing a child than trying to make any sort of comparison to this discussion. I'd suggest do what others have suggested so far in this discussion: Read over what you've written, see what might be misinterpreted, and reword it so it's less ambiguous and less likely to be misinterpreted.

And I think you're missing why I'm addressing these points. I know that Courtney doesn't need me to speak for her; she's more than capable of defending herself. I'm not doing this because I'm "teaming up" with anyone. I've been responding to posts directed to her because I cannot stand seeing people using logic so atrociously, or using such terrible debate technique. I'm a nit-picker. This is me nit-picking. Not to mention, others have started addressing us as if we are a single "force," if you will, so it's difficult to not respond for each other, I feel.

Honestly, though, based on what's been said, this entire discussion is essentially over. Ariana explained that she didn't mean this to be enforced on

all mothers and that it's her personal opinion on the subject. Courtney and I have said that people are free to believe whatever they want, as long as those beliefs don't hurt people. Since Ariana's belief doesn't hurt anyone, there's really nothing more to discuss. If you want us to be more understanding, it'd probably be for the best if you stopped dragging it out. We've reached a tentative understanding of what happened (although we don't really have a solution to the results of this insanity); it's not like we're going to keep ranting if no one defends the idea that these beliefs <i>should</i> be enforced, or if no one starts making new arguments for side-discussions, as has been happening in the past few comments. If you honestly want to help everyone involved, stop posting about how sad this all is and how we need to support each other. It's not helping put this all to rest; if anything, it's likely making it worse. April 19 at 6:58pm Like Courtney Corcoran I have loads of support and encouragement and understanding for my friends and family. What I don't have all those things for is, as I've already said, inequality and forced beliefs. My child can be christian, atheist, muslim, hindu, gay, s traight, pansexual, liberal, conservative, I don't care. As long as my child doesn't try to oppress people, or force their opinions on others, I don't care. Again, that;s the whole point of ALL of this. Freedom of choice. You can choose to devote your life to a religion, or not give to shits about religion. You can choose to spend your life serving someone else, or choose to live completely alone. As long as it stays your choice, and your choice alone, and it doesn't negatively affect others, I see no problems with it.

I like that you suggested being open-minded, Kelly, as that's what we've Marybeth and I have been trying to stress. [I should start counting the times I've had to say this.] It honestly seems like the two of you are taking half of what we say and ignoring it, and choosing only to respond to what you see as negative. I have said quite a few times that what we stress is choice and giving people options and not preaching, yet what I've been recieving from you two has been entirely "Boohoo you're mean" and "Lol, silly children. You obviosuly don't know anything." You ask us to 'stop and think' yet it would appear that we are the only ones thinking. I've had people that don't want to get involved come to me sayign they read all of this and have given me their blessings.

As I said before, Kelly, I am not doing this to be right, and I do not intend to hurt Ariana. I just will not sit idely by watching injustice occur. I have been rebuilding my life to adhere to that. I will no longer be the girl that Ariana knows me as that talks a lot of shit, but never really does anything, and just lets people walk all over her. I will no longer stand for sexism and inequality of any kind. Honestly though, there are bigger things going on in my life and this world than me hurting someone's feelings because they cannot understand how sexist they're being.

Kelly, I obviously don't know you, and don't mean to purposefully offend you either. Quite frankly though, I do not know why you are even in this. You have pretty much just come in on your white horse to protect Ariana from the meanies. [And this is something I want Ariana to understand as well] She came on to facebook, and posted controversial opinions about a controversial subject. [Sure, she didn't claim she wanted to kill jews or anthing, but it's still controversial] She should have expect critiques, questions, and differing opinions. No one person is going to have everyone agree with them, which again, is what this is all about. We all have different ideas about how we want to live our lives, and it is no one's right to say that their way is the best or correct way.

Please actually READ this instead od pointing out individual sentences that, our of context, distort my message. April 19 at 7:14pm Like Kelly Crosby Again, Marybeth.. Thank you for your lessons on what I should do and telling me what I think. It is clear that no matter what I say, you will twist it to continue on your diatribe. I am sorry it bothers you that I feel sad for Ariana. Perhaps some day you might understand. I hope so. April 19 at 7:15pm via mobile Like Marybeth Baumgartner Kelly, there is no way to argue about anything, particularly subjects that involve ethics, without using phrases like "<noun> need(s) to <verb>," or "<noun> should <verb>," etc. Arguments are about arguing for something thus the language of "should" and "need to." And I'm sorry that there isn't a way to ask you to read more thoroughly, or pay attention to what's been said, or use better debate techniques without making you feel as though I'm giving you a

lesson? I don't know what you were expecting, but all debate uses this sort of languageand, if it doesn't, it's just thinly veiled (e.g., "Reading carefully is necessary," "people have failed to do ____, which is a mistake," etc.). It's not like I'm the odd one out here; you've used the exact same sort of language in some of your posts, for example. Your obsession with this is rather perplexing to me, I'll be honest. And I hope my attempt to avoid the language that you find somehow offensive allows you to get through this paragraph.

Oh, patronization, it's nice to see you pop up like a fork in a toolbox again a misplaced object that has no use here and will just make a problem worse. I'm not bothered by your sympathy. I'm bothered that you think you can fix this situation by expressed how sad this makes you, as though it'll help. It doesn't. I'm glad that you're there to help Ariana, I honestly ambut you keep repeating how sad this makes you as though it'll change anything. It won't. I'm not trying to be cold here. You just keep saying you're disappointed, and fine, whatever, be disappointed. But to say you're disappointed and then not think that you'll just spark the argument again, or drag out the emotional roller-coaster even further? That's short-sighted and ridiculous. If you can't see what I mean by this, fine, you can continue being disappointed at me. But that's not going to change or help the situation, which is my point. April 19 at 7:26pm Unlike You like this Kelly Crosby Courtney , I did not say those things to you. If that is what you heard... Maybe that is how you interpret it then. I also did not in any way say you wouldn't be a good or accepting mom. I hope you will be. I simply and sincerely asked. Just as I ask myself how to handle things. I am sorry you took it the way you did. I can't control how you interpret a question. I don't understand why I shouldnt be any more a part of this conversation than you? Good luck with your getting your life together. And that is a sincere comment. It's not easy and I wish you well. April 19 at 7:27pm via mobile Like Courtney Corcoran Oh look, Marybeth, Kelly skimmed our posts again. Good lord. You

absolutely did insinuate that I would not be accepting of my childrens choices. You are playing bullshit 'fail-proof' cards that people that lack evidence for their arguments fall upon. Stop resting on "I'm a mom, I know these things" and "But I'm being so nice I don't understand!" [By that I mean wishing us great lives and insulting us in the same post.] and give me a real, legitimate reason why I, or Marybeth for that matter, have been wrong thus far in this conversation. [If you could call it one.] Give me some examples of Marybeth and I being mean and not accepting people's choices. Tell me please why I am wrong for standing up for what I believe in. Explain to me why the majority of the logical arguments both Marybeth and myself have used have been ignored, and instead you choose to pick on that language that we choose to use, even though it has already been established that language does not diminish logic. Tell me how it is okay for you to think of Ariana as an 'extra child' yet, as long as I've been her friend, I've never heard of you, yet my sister, whom I have given everything for time and time again, can't POSSIBLY be considered my child. Tell me why arguments that you use are double standards, that could actually work in our favor as well. Tell me why you say you want to give your children choices as well, but when your so called 'extra child' puts herself in an obvious position where debate is required, you have to run in and defend her. Explain how " If and when you do become a mother, what if your child decides to become a Christian, or anything else that goes against your beliefs? Would you hurt your child and say you wouldn't be there for her because she has chosen something different from what you feel is right - for you? SO SO sad." isn't insinuating that I will not give my children choice. Please, enlighten me as to how "You are not a mother to your sister" is "openminded", "supporting and understanding and listening and encouraging." Cite for me specific examples of how Marybeth and I are being the bad friends, yet Ariana, and you yourself, whom we do not even know, are NOT being bad friends.

Personally, I don't think that denying someone the title of mother, simply because their experience in mothering isn't the same as others, or because the speaker isn't a mother, therefore the other one cannot be, is being a good friend. I don't think that someone who hasn't done anywhere CLOSE to the things I've done for my siblings, who I think of as my children, clearly states that I am not a mother, is a good friend at all. Perhaps it was offensive that I shared my opinions, and fought against sexism and forced opinions, but denying someone the title of mother, to someone that fits the generalized criteria of a mother, to children that weren't even her own, that's pretty goddamned offensive. There aren't many things one can say that is more hurtful than denying a mother the title of motherhood. That's not for you to

decide.

So, Ariana. Stop being so butthurt because you find offense in what I say, when you are being equally, and sometimes even more so, offensive as I.

And, Kelly. Try some logic out for size. It's generally recommended for debates. Try sticking up for someone that isn't blatantly sexist. [Granted we've resolved that Ariana is not imposing sexism, but that was not apparent at the time of your intervening.] And for fuck's sake, if you're going to play white knight, at least do it right. April 19 at 9:01pm Like TiAira Savage Ok so this is my first time really being able to post to this. I've tried to read thru the post unbiased and see how things played out. I couldn't even get a full ten comments in before i was physically sickened. I find it completely RIDICU LOUS that there is this much uproar over a paper Ariana decided to write for FUN!!! According to this wonderful little thing called the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION she has a RIGHT to formulate her own opinion on anything. Yet as I read thru the bashing upon her it seems as some of you are allowed to have your opinion yet you find it completely acceptable to CRUCIFY Ariana for her opinion. Ooops I said a biblical word boohooo!!! If you didn't like what she had written then you should have just found something else to do on the fabulous World Wide Web instead of demeaning someone's beliefs. Instead of these comments being about the heart of the paper which is being a stay at home mother is just as wonderful as any working mother everyone focused on the bible aspects. Just like some of you don't like the bible there are some that do. If you dont like it skip the damn part!!! It makes me sad that Ariana cant have her opinion just because she used the bible to support some of her thoughts. My parents aren't devout Christians. My mother was once upon a time a stay at home mom as we grew up she followed her own dreams and worked different jobs til she fount the right one (there is nothing wrong with that). The part of submitting to your husband isnt incorrect in any form. As I said my parents are NOT devout Christians. If my mom wants to go buy a boat for example, she would speak with my dad on it. If they couldnt reach an agreement she might research stuff to try and show him things that could persuade him. In the end if my dad doesnt think its a good idea then it doesnt happen. This is NOT because my mother BLINDLY follows him. And in NO way

has my mother EVER SILENTLY submitted to my father. But in the end she TRUSTS his decision. TRUST being the main point of that sentence. Finally, for the point that Ariana has changed is some way for better or for worse. I may not have known her for that long but I do know that she is HAPPY! She is HAPPY with Christ in her life. She is HAPPY with the idea of following the leadership of her future husband if need be!!!! Once again is the word HAPPY. As far as I am concerned any true friend would be glad that their friend is HAPPY as she is and accept her as she is without bashing her for her beliefs or for a simple paper that she wrote for FUN! As my mother says if you have nothing nice to say then SHUT THE HELL UP! April 19 at 9:03pm Like Courtney Corcoran Let me list the bullshit;

1) We do have the right to make our own decisions. Had you read this properly, you'd see that that is the point we have been trying to make. 2) Let me define something for you. "Crucifixion is an ancient method of deliberately painful execution in which the condemned person is tied or nailed to a large wooden cross and left to hang until dead." Because yes. We obviously nailed Ariana to a cross 3) Actually, Ariana is the one with the problem with people that say biblical words. 4) That was her fault for posting it online. 5) It is shameful that you would suggest that what seemed to be sexism was okay because it was an opinion. By that logic, Hitler was okay to think that jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc. should all be killed, since it was his opinion. 6) No. The opinion expressed was not that stay at home moms are just as good as working moms. The opinion expressed was that working moms are lazy people that don't feel like raising their kids, so they go and work a job where they essentially make no money and pawn their kids off on strangers. 7) We never said the bible was awful and she should throw it out. We stated that it was not a universal argument, as it only applies to christians. 8) Again, not what we said. She can have her opinions and she can base them on the bible. It just doesn't hold up in debate, that's all.

9) When did we ever say that working different jobs, or being a stay at home mom, or being a working mom was wrong? Never. That's when. 10) Yes it is. It's sexism, and sexism is wrong. It's black and white. The end. 11) So you're parents are non-christians and are still sexist? That's lovely. At least Ariana has an excuse. 12) If she trusts him to make the right decision, why does she try to reason with him in the first place? Seems like a waste of breath to me. 13) My friendship with Ariana is not on the table for you to decide. That's between her and myself. 14) There are a lot of things I could say about her happiness right now, because of things she has confided in me, but I wouldn't consider this to be happiness right now. Either way, even if we both thought she was happy doesn't mean she is. You and I can't say one way or the other. 15) Again, we are not bashing her, what she wants to do with her life, or her religious choices. We were bashing sexism and forced view points. 16) That's not a very nice thing to say, telling someone to shut the hell up. Perhaps you should take your mothers advice.

For the record, it would appear that you ONLY read the first ten comments. We already dissolved many of the issues that you just brought back up. Religion for example, was an issue we had moved past. I really hope you didn't just step on the butterfly that sets all of this in motion AGAIN. I would suggest [which is a recommendation, before you complain about it, not a command. Do what you will.] that you for one, read all of the comments before you jump to conclusions. Two, that you learn the definitions of words before you use them. And three, that you take a good look at the dumb shit you just said. This argument was hanging on the thread of intelligence as it was, and I'm pretty sure you just broke it. Lots of exclamation points doesn't make your argument more sound. Just because your parents do things a certain way, doesn't mean it is correct. Take a step into some else's shoes. Not all of us want to "trust" our husbands opinions just because he's the "leader." Not all of us want to have a "leader" in our relationships. Some of us want partnership and equality, not another parent/child relationship. April 19 at 9:34pm Like TiAira Savage

First off i did not jump to any conclusions. I read the whole paper and as I read it i didnt get upset I didnt see any sexism at all. All I saw was a paper written for fun. I didnt pass any judgement or anything. I find it ridiculous that t his has reached an uproar over one person's opinion. Yes ur right in saying I did not read thru all the comments because after the first ten I was incomplete shock at how much this became a debate. If you cleared up the issues great for u! As I said in my post I said this is my first chance to actually sit down to type anything up and post to this. I do not wish to stirrup anything again by my post, I am simply stating my OPINION which I am entitled. As for my parents they are in noway sexists. I do not understand why trusting your husband with a decision is showing sexism. My dad tends to have an upper hand on budgeting and finances. Therefore when it comes to those things he's the wiser. My mother allows this. My mother in NO WAY is a person to submit but she believes that in the end my father will know whats best. Also not once in MY post did I ever state that because my parents do things a certain way that everyone has to. I was simply showing how even in a non christian relationship that reasoning can take place as Ariana had posted in her way. You are right in saying everyone has a choice and not once did I say that this was an absolute rule book for relationships. The matter that was in this paper wasn't to make a rule book or to force anyone to anything so why get so upset about an opinion. If you disagree then so be it but I dont see why this has become such an extensive event. What you take as sexism isnt always how someone else takes it. As you believe its eveyones right to do and be who they want. If someone agrees to have their husband be the leader of their household who are you to criticize them? Its amazing to me that this one paper has reached 100+ comments. I personally do not have time to sit around and read thru them all because you guys are pretty darn extensive in your posts. Reading thru what I did alot of the things said were pretty blunt and seemingly hurtful. Not that being blunt is a problem because I am a blunt person also. I just think that the way this posting played out was awful to the extent that because each persons beliefs are soooo strong everyone has gotten so caught up in being defensive swords crossed and war ensued. You might believe we cant speak on her happiness. Which is true somewhat because we will never know for sure everything in her head. Regardless of that I know we can conclude that all this back and forth on a paper written out of fun couldnt have made her happy. At the end of the day besides everything else we have to realize that this isnt finite law. My biggest issue isnt with defending anything but instead with that fact that it seems like opinions arent welcomed anymore. What you believe and what i believe may never be the same but that doesnt mean we dont have the right to believe it. April 19 at 10:06pm Like 1

Courtney Corcoran First off, half of what you said didn't make sense, because sentence structure. [Also grammar, punctuation, and spelling.] I struggled to read through both of your posts at points. It just didn't make sense. Not to say this derails your arg...See More April 19 at 10:34pm Like TiAira Savage "We already solved half of the problems you brought up, we like opinions, we just don't like them shoved down our throats.".....as I said if u solved them great for u! Repeating that i haven't read all the posts doesn't change any view of mine. I clearly stated that I had not read them and accepted that fact. So why do u insist on repeating that? I made my opinion on what I had read (which i also have already stated). As for the grammar issues u were so nice to point out...Im on facebook not writing a paper therefore I'm not concerned with writing it perfectly. As for the comment about my parents my mother always follows my father opinion regardless of who has the most knowledge in the matter. She does put up a fight but in the end she knows that he will learn from the mistake of not taking her opinion into account. Also not once did i say i base everything i do on my parents. I simply stated that the same leadership roles from the paper occur in my family. My parents are there for me to learn from I can see what works and what doesnt. If I decide to base my decisions on how my parents do it, it is once again my choice. I see that its okay for people to chose what they want in life as long as those choices coincide with ur beliefs. Finally I still do not see where any opinion was FORCED upon you in this paper. It was your choice to read it and you could have chosen not to comment or to not finish reading it. But thats the thing with choices, you can make any of them. In the end, as entertaining as the past hour or so has been going back and forth having this conversation that is all it really is. I felt the need to post on what little I had read. End of story. April 19 at 10:58pm Like Nathaniel McNiel Atwell Forgive me, I have not read the comments yet. but before I do I think I am going to comment on the note itself. Firstly, I find this whole thing to be based on gender norms. The problem with this, is that gender norms are not for everyone. Non-binary gender roles are surprisingly common. My next comment is that women, like men have the right to choose whether they are mothers,

how they raise their children, and how they go about their career. This is not wrong, a cop out, or anything else. Finally to suggest that the reason for women wanting a career is to remove themselves of the responsibility of motherhood, is completely, and provably wrong. Women have many reasons for wanting a career, among them might be, a simple love to the job/field they decide to work in.

In other words, you are simply wrong. April 19 at 11:05pm Like Courtney Corcoran TiAira; You are essentially reading the first chapter of a book, then declaring it is stupid, regardless of the other contents of the book. My point in repeating that we already resolved the issues is to get you to stop commenting on what a...See More April 19 at 11:21pm Like Courtney Corcoran I hope he doesn't make any extreme decisions*** April 19 at 11:26pm Like Nathaniel McNiel Atwell Also, Still reading comments, and I think it might be important to say, that if you post an opinion online, and especially if you end with "So, after all if this, throw out your opinions. Do you think women should stay at home with their ki ds? Should they work? Have your opinions changed? Can you at least understand the other side?" or any other call to debate, call of opinions, you should except opinions, you should expect discussion and this is not a bad thing, and I know Marybeth Baumgartner and Courtney Corcoran well enough to know that they are not personally attacking you Ariana Lockington. Neither am I. But you did ask for opinions and you got them. I would expect nothing short of this kind of response. April 20 at 12:22am Like Marybeth Baumgartner + 1 other Marybeth Baumgartner Okay, I managed to miss out on most of this, but I'll just address a few points here, in regards to TiAira's posts:

1) I'm sticking this at the top, because I think it's the most important point to address: You are entitled to your opinion , <i>but your opinion is not therefore sacred</i>. If your opinion is problematic and you think other people should, as good people, agree with it, it will be addressed. Claiming otherwise is to say that I could say a number of terrible, terrible thingsthat eugenics and the killing of the weak, poor, old, stupid, etc. is good and necessary for our species' existence, for example and no one would be able to argue with me, even if I start calling for the government to start gassing people, because my opinion would be sacred and above any criticism. That's not the real world, and it's far from how any hypothetical world should operate. And just in case you haven't read the rest of the comments yet, here's a spoiler alert: We were arguing about this because we thought Ariana was trying to impose her opinions on other people, not because she has this opinion. As long as she keeps it to herself, she's free to believe what she wishes; we wouldn't be spending so long arguing about this if we knew this wasn't meant to be a persuasive essay. (Also, just a note: "imposing her opinions" doesn't mean that we thought we were being attacked personally, or that "imposing opinions" is synonymous with "posting opinions online for others to see." We thought she was declaring what mothers should do: that, namely, they should abandon their careers and take up being a stay-at-home mom because that is the right thing to do, and that's the only way to be a respected, good mother. That's what imposing your beliefs on other people is, because you are telling them how to live their life. And the imposition of those beliefs is hurtful to women, thus the impassioned responses from Courtney and me. Again, Ariana wasn't actually arguing for that, but that's what Courtney and I were fighting against throughout most of this discussion, and you need to understand that for our arguments to make the most sense.)

2) TiAira, if you're commenting without reading any of our arguments, you are, by definition, jumping to conclusions. You're taking the few arguments of ours that you have read and assuming you know how the argument's gone from there. If you don't see how this doesn't involving any sort of jumping, I'd love to hear your definition of what "jumping to conclusions" actually is. If you don't have time to read through the comments, don't bother commenting, because you obviously don't care enough about the issue for it to be worth it to you or anybody else.

3) Again, please, read the arguments carefully before claiming what anyone was saying. I, for example, was not whining about Ariana using a

"Biblical word," whatever that is; I was pointing out that citing the Bible is a bad tactic to take in an argumentin an attempt to help <i>make her argument better</i>. I find it very, very odd that people are taking a piece of constructive criticism to be an attack on a religion. I was not saying that believing in the Bible is wrong, or bad, or anything like that; I was just saying that citing the Bible is ineffective when it comes to convincing people of a point. That is not whining. It's pointing out the logical short-comings of an argument.

4) My problem is not that Ariana believes in the Bible; I honestly couldn't care less. My problem is (or, more accurately, "was") that the beliefs I thought she wanted to impose on others are sexist and not logically sound.

5) TiAira, just because you didn't see sexism doesn't mean it's not there. There's a lot of internalized sexism running amok in women (for examples, see slut-shaming, prude-shaming, victim-blaming, etc.), and there's a lot of "silent" sexism (i.e., sexism that isn't as in-your-face as "women shouldn't have the right to vote!" and "women are clearly inferior to men!") in the world, too. Your blindness to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As Courtney suggested and I have mentioned multiple times, it would probably for the best if you read all of the comments before posting again, because we have covered and addressed most of this already. Then, once you're caught up, we can try to hash out anything you disagree with. (Plus, I think the people who have stuck out for this are getting sick of me repeating myself, especially in regards to sexism.) April 20 at 1:18am Like Marybeth Baumgartner Also, I really don't know if this disclaimer is necessary, but people do realize that I'm using the impersonal/general "you" 95% of the time, right? When I stay things like, "You shouldn't _____," I'm not saying that a particular person sho uldn't ___; I'm saying that people, in general, shouldn't ___. If it makes anyone uncomfortable, they can replace it with "one" (which I find cumbersome and confusing) or "people," and my point should still make it through.

I'm not sure if this is actually a problem, but some of the points about my

language makes me think it might be? Either way, it's better to be safe than sorry. April 20 at 1:37am Like Adam Sickle Yes, this all seems to be going somewhere useful. I guess I should have said not to post this kind of note on here instead... April 20 at 1:46am Like Ariana Lockington Can we all just stop? That would be awesome April 20 at 4:04pm via mobile Like Adam Sickle + 1 other Steven Potter I'm going to have to second Ariana. I decided while I was typing up my opinion on the matter that I wasn't going to repost after that for one key reason. Arguing on the internet is stupid. Its nearly impossible to change someones opinion in...See More April 20 at 5:52pm Like 1 Marybeth Baumgartner I definitely agree. I was ready to drop it once it was made clear that what I was arguing about wasn't what was intended, but I have really bad habits of both nit-picking and needing to explain myself to people, particularly when they don't...See More April 21 at 3:03am Like Marybeth Baumgartner Correction: it is ridiculous*, not becoming ridiculous. It might be becoming more ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure it hit "ridiculous" sometime before that. April 21 at 3:06am Like Isaac Indgjer likes this