The feminists and their spawn have created their very own hamster-ecosystem. We have the power-professional who wants to
have everyone dance around her gender sensibilities be treated just like any other man in the boardroom while getting roughed up by Alpha males in the bedroom. We have the vile screecher who can’t fathom why nobody will ever “shut the fuck up” and let her talk (because you make Bill O’Reilly seem like an attractive make-out/conversation partner in comparison, that’s why). And of course, there’s the classic party slut who can’t find a husband. The list is long.
We can now add to it the woman who believes that her children belong to all of us: Mizz Melissa Harris-Perry.
Mizz Harris-Perry is one of the Anointed, meaning that under the “collective notion of these are our children” she’ll have inordinate “responsibility” for what “our children” learn. Understand that as one of our betters, Mizz Harris-Perry’s “collective notion” would invariably mean that “our” children, both hers and yours, would learn what she wants them to learn. No worries about any “collective notions” including hunting trips with the Palin family. It’s recycling clubs and diversity projects all the way.
But the Anointed aren’t the only ones with a vested interest in rejecting “kind of a private notion of children.” To the Entitled, “collective responsibility” for “our” children means that her kid is “your responsibility.” Breaking “through this private idea that kids belong to their parents” is all fun and games when the “collective notion of these are our children” only means you get “community” help to pay for diapers and school supplies.
Except it doesn’t.
Shoot me for jumping to conclusions, and I admit I could be wrong, but I suspect that before the kertuffle with her daughter that Ms. Godboldo probably didn’t object to the “collective notion of these are our children.” In certain respects, she probably still doesn’t. Not unlike the “29” girl in the Garfunkel and Oates song, Mizz Harris-Perry, Ms. Godboldo, and millions of other lefties all all races and backgrounds genuinely don’t see any downside to “break[ing] through this private idea that kids belong to their parents.”
Until they hit “31” and it smacks them upside the head. Your child is ours. You don’t like what we’re doing with it? Tough.
Certain lefties undoubtedly sincerely believe that they’re only advocating “communities” coming together to help the children and NOT the State drugging some kid to serve the “collective” interest. Likewise, those who advocate that women ham it up with as many dudes as possible to “find themselves” in their twenties don’t think they’re also promoting 42 year-old women feeling alone and forgotten.
But it’s the same damn thing. Queen Hamster thinks she can have it both ways, but she can’t. If we “break through” the “kind of private notion” that “your kid is yours and your responsibility”, you don’t have control over how you raise your own kids. If we are responsible for our children, then there’s no reason for us to let you have any special consideration in how you want to do things.
After all, wouldn’t that be selfish?
(Don’t get me wrong, I applaud Ms. Godboldo in her efforts (although I think comparing her to Rosa Parks is a bit much). But part of me is reminded of the woman who lets her kids run screaming through the grocery store, only to tell you “How DARE you talk to my child!” when you tell the little brats to shut the hell up.)
In response to her critics, Mizz Harris-Perry “double[s] down” first by completely missing and mocking the point:
When the flood of vitriolic responses to the ad began, my first reaction was relief. I had spent the entire day grading papers and was relieved that since these children were not my responsibility, I could simply mail the students’ papers to their moms and dads to grade! But of course, that is a ridiculous notion. As a teacher, I have unique responsibilities to the students in my classroom at Tulane University, and I embrace those responsibilities. It is why I love my job.
Does she not get that that she chose her job as a professor? (and since when are college students “children” anyway?) Would it make any difference to her if they dragged me in off the streets to grade those papers and made me grade them? (You bet it would. I’d be about as conducive to improving their self-esteem as this guy. That’s how people tend to “support” “communities” they’d rather not be a part of.)
To defend her notion of “collective responsibility to children” she gives a nice long list of people voluntarily doing right by kids in their community to defend her idea that we should be forced to care for other people’s kids. As I’ve mentioned before, many female lefties have a very hard time telling the difference. She “embrace[s] those responsibilities.” Wonderful. What if I don’t? (and the accusation that this belief makes me un-Christian will be addressed very soon)
We do live in a nation where slaveholders took the infants from the arms of my foremothers and sold them for their own profit. We do live in a nation where the government snatched American Indian children from their families and “re-educated” them by forbidding them to speak their language and practice their traditions.
But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it.
Sorry, sweetie. I don’t know it. I know you “have no designs on taking [our] children”, but what you advocate will result in the taking of our children in spirit, if not physically. You advocate shared responsibility, but what results from that is diminished personal responsibility. The mother who knows that somebody else will take care of her kid is less likely to take care of it herself. The mother who wishes to teach her child things that are unpopular will have a harder time in an environment in which the responsibility for that child isn’t really hers.
And the mother who doesn’t want her kid to have to take psychotropic drugs will have to fight to do what she wants with her very own daughter.
Does Alice really want to go down this rabbit-hole?