Cue the Alice Cooper. I’m back.
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?
Of course. The thing is for women like her, she assumes SHE will decide what is learned.
The fact these feminist cunts don’t get the message and back down is kinda amusing in it’s own way..
But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it.
Sorry, sweetie. I don’t know it.
Exactly. Especially when in other countries kids are being taken from their families. And even families who have come here for asylum are being threatened with deportation for teaching their children at home.
Are you familiar with John Taylor Gatto?
Exactly. There’s a dark side to collectivism that they’ll only see once they’ve been collectivized.
This whole “children belong to all of us” thing started with Rousseau’s “Emile”. Individual families instilling their own values into their own children are a threat to mandatory “togetherness”.
Some of us get this ahead of time, others only see it after it’s too late.
I am part of a couple of homeschooling groups and while I am not familiar with all the ins and outs of these groups, what I do know is that these people like Mizz Harris-Parry do not realize what will come of them pushing this agenda. The pushback would be so much more than they realize.
Harris-Perry and her allies have no clue how fiercely some of us oppose them. The Tea Party was a shock. They thought they could steamroll through some sort of gun control. We won’t give up.
We may become a distinct minority, but we’ll be a ferocious one.
Pingback: Denigration | Alpha Is Assumed
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/04/24 | Free Northerner
I’m not sure how passionate you are about this issue, but it continues to happen. I thought you might be interested.
In one sense it’s not huge on my list of issue-priorities, but in another sense to me it’s all the same issue.
I like what they’re doing, but I’d reword the amendment. “Governmental interest” as applied to the child could be easily construed and ignored by judges who see us as wards of the State.
Also, on your site more posts, please. I got hooked and want more crap from you.
BTW, in my discussion with Observer, I’m right. I just don’t see any reason to write any more diatribes that will be responded to with “I disagree.” But thanks for supplying the forum.
Thank you, Martel. I’m currently in bad shape and am nearly unable to write a coherent sentence (hell, I just had to google how to spell coherent). When my brain power returns (and my time, it’s a crazy week) I’ll be posting more.
I believe you are right as well. I do want to post your comment, but I need to put some thought into it first. I thought that was completely fascinating. I have long believed the hamster can be used for good, but never really broached it as it is a very slippery topic. I don’t think men like the thought os the hamster do good as it can so easily slip back to rationalizing the bad.
It would mean less publicity for me, but maybe you could warm your readers up with something that describes how the Hamster isn’t necessarily all bad without yet referencing faith. Maybe there was a time you were tempted to cheat or something but the Hamster kept you on the right path.
Recovering betas are especially reluctant to see the positive aspects to female traits that kept screwing us over before we understood them. Unless you’re particularly insightful like me, until the Hamster’s worked in your favor a few times, it’s hard to understand how it could be good. After all, it’s what’s kept us in the friend-zone time after time.
Also, people get really picky about their theology sometimes. I think it’s okay to be wrong about Scripture as long as you’re making a good faith effort to understand it, but the charred remains of history’s “heretics” tell us that many don’t agree.
Sometimes we’re explicitly told what happened in somebody’s head (“and God hardened pharoah’s heart”), but usually we’re not. However, I think we’re supposed to see Biblical figures as examples, both positive and negative. That requires us to try to figure out where they might have been coming from so as to either follow or reject their examples.
To just dismiss it all as “the Holy Spirit made her do it” strikes me as simplistic and exemplifies a passive theology. Faith may come from the Holy Spirit, but does it have nothing whatsoever to do with how we think or feel about things? Just because it’s a natural human instinct, does that mean God can’t work with and through it? God may have worked through Joshua to gain his conquests, but if Joshua himself had nothing to do with it, then why the hell should we even bother to learn who he was or what he did?
Were that the case we could reduce the Bible by about 80% and be none the worse for it.
Pingback: The Pressure Cooker | Alpha Is Assumed
Pingback: You Say You Wanna Devolution? | Alpha Is Assumed
Pingback: Feminism vs. GIA | Alpha Is Assumed
Pingback: Institutionalized | Alpha Is Assumed
Pingback: Barbarism | Alpha Is Assumed