Mom at Washington Post admits liberalism hurts her parenting, then doubles down on liberalism

Over the weekend I ran across a fascinating piece by the Washington Post’s Darlena Cunha. In I’m a die-hard liberal. It ruined my parenting,’ she admits that liberalism is hurting her parenting and warping her kids’ minds — before telling readers that in response to the realization she will double down on liberalism.

To really appreciate such a beautifully bizarre piece of prose we must break it down into pieces.

She begins:

My intentions are good. I want my two daughters, 6, to think critically, to fight for fairness and justice whenever they can. I want them to value equality above all else.

She wants her kids to value equality “above all else.” Therein lies the rub. When a woman values equality “above all else,” she becomes an advocate for tyranny, whether she realizes it or not.

In a free societies, inequalities will always exist. That is the natural result of individuals exercising free will. That is also why those who cherish equality of outcomes over equality of opportunity almost always find themselves seeking more power with every failure to impose arbitrary visions of “fairness” and “justice” on a world.

Ms. Cunha continues:

Three is probably a bit too young for the pay-gap speech, but there I was, explaining why I turned down a low-paying position at a local business. […] I thought my parenting approach would lead to strong, confident girls who are able to assess situations and logically thwart unequal systems. And it probably will, someday. But right now? They’re 6. The lessons I’ve taught them have led to two very dissatisfied girls who don’t know if their mother is their friend, their adversary or their keeper.

Anyone can be your friend, but only one person can be your biological father. Only one person can be your biological mother. Mothers and fathers have profoundly different roles than “friends,” and any parent who confuses their children in that regard is doing them a grave disservice.

The author’s recent trip to the grocery store is a harbinger of things to come — for the family and for the community her daughter ultimately ends up living in as an adult:

My daughter wanted me to buy her candy but had not behaved well enough to warrant an extra treat.

“Mom,” my daughter said, “people without money need help, and people with money need to help them.”

“Yes, that’s right,” I said.

“Well, I don’t have money, and you do, so you need to help me and buy this.”

A perfectly well-reasoned, thought-out argument.

When the answer was still no, she tantrumed and screamed, and I had to drag her out of the store. She did what I’d taught her; she still didn’t get what she wanted. I didn’t get what I wanted. Everyone was unhappy. …

I’ve taught the wrong message — that life should be fair and there is no other acceptable option. I did it before the girls had the capacity to understand the meaning of fair. “Fair became what I want right now because I want it”

Notice that Ms. Cunha calls her small child’s inane argument “well-reasoned.” It is not, which is why she soon admits that “fair became what I want right now because I want it.”

If that sounds familiar, then it is because that is what I said the argument boils down to for “diversity” race-baiters like Jesse Jackson:

The end result is that diversity activism boils down to “I want what I want when I want it.” What constitutes “diversity” is completely arbitrary. When numbers can be used as a racial cudgel, expect to be beaten. When numbers are inconvenient, it’s none of the white/asian guy’s business.

When children of Washington Post liberals grow up, they are exactly the kind of people who throw tantrums because black people make up 20 percent of the U.S. population, but not 20 percent of all doctors, wedding cake makers, auto mechanics, lawyers, and computer programmers. When a man values “equality above all else,” he does so at the expense of freedom and liberty.

Inequalities in and of themselves are not a bad thing. The rational man looks to see why the inequality that strikes his interest exists before passing judgment. If black men aren’t particularly fond of the automotive field, then he isn’t particularly concerned. There is no reason why black men should become auto mechanics if that is not what they desire. If there is no meaningful obstacle blocking their participation in the field, then the rational man salutes and moves on. In fact, if a survey was conducted that found black people want nothing to do with the profession, then inequality in the field could very well be a good thing.

The liberal activist does not see the world this way. If an inequality exists, then the coercive power of the State must be channeled to bring about his or her desired result. It is an incredibly odd mindset, which is why Ms. Cunha’s piece is worthy of attention. Like rare video footage of deep sea giant squid, the world now gets to see how these ideas continue to thrive generation after generation.

While I do not subscribe to this author’s political views, I am grateful to her for sharing her stories with the world. They are incredibly instructive, in ways that she appears to not fully comprehend.

Give the entire piece a read if you get a chance. It can be found here.

New Yorkers who like to be treated like infants applaud mandated parenting classes

What happened to New York City? It used to be a city of tough cookies, but now it’s full of intellectually and spiritually numb drones cheering on officials who continuously find new ways to enslave them. New Yorkers can not be trusted with guns. New Yorkers can not be trusted with carbonated beverages. New Yorkers can not be trusted with e-cigarettes. And now, they can not be trusted to raise their own children, according to Democratic state senator Ruben Diaz.

Senator Ruben Diaz
This is the man who thinks New Yorkers should be forced to attend parenting classes. Sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Fox 5 New York reported:

New York state Sen. Ruben Diaz Jr. introduced a bill that would require parents of elementary school children to attend a minimum of four parent support classes. If parents don’t go, 6th graders won’t move onto 7th grade.

The bill states one of the courses would be related to physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of children.

Employers would be required to provide one day a year of paid leave so working parents can attend classes.

What’s worse, when asked by a reporter what they thought about the mandate, there were New Yorkers who actually gave the idea two thumbs up.

“No, I don’t mind. I don’t mind. I don’t mind having to take the class because I think it’s a good thing.”

“You need a license to fish, but anyone could be a parent and there’s some really bad parents out there.”

“I  think every good parent would admit that there’s always something more that they could learn. So, people who are truly offended by it are  probably the ones who need it the most need it the most.”

Nobody denies that there is “always something more” to learn. The question is whether or not you should be mandated by the government to “learn” what nameless faceless bureaucrats want you to learn about raising your own kid.

Barry Goldwater was a smart man. He was also the type of guy New Yorkers have made fun of for decades, which is why they now beg politicians for psychological shackles without even realizing it.

Parenting Class New York
Hi, I’m a New Yorker who likes to be told what to do. When I have kids, I want politicians from the Bronx who wear goofy cowboy hats to force me to attend classes during the work week. But it’s okay, because they’ll make my employer pick up the tab. Being a slave is so liberating! It’s like you don’t even have to think for yourself. Ahhhh.

Let us revisit for a moment ‘The Conscious of a Conservative” to see how we ended up in a day and age where citizens would cheer the state’s imposition of parenting classes.

Consider the consequences to the recipient of welfarism. For one thing, he mortgages himself to the federal government. In return for benefits — which, in the majority of cases, he pays for — he concedes to the government the ultimate in political power — the power to grant or withhold from him the necessities of life as the government sees fit. Even more important, however, is the effect on him — the elimination of any feeling of responsibility for his own welfare and that of his family and neighbors. A man may not immediately, or ever, comprehend the harm thus done to his character. Indeed, this is one of the great evils of Welfarism — that it transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it.

[We] can shatter the collectivists’ designs on individual freedom if we will impress upon the men who conduct our affairs this one truth: that the material and spiritual sides of man are intertwined; that it is impossible for the State to assume responsibility for one without intruding on the essential nature of the other; that if we take from a man the personal responsibility for caring for his material needs, we take from him also the will and the opportunity to be free.

While Mr. Goldwater was talking primarily about the enormity of the welfare state at the time, the underlying point — that collectivism erodes man’s spirit — is relevant to New York’s politics.

With every new law that takes away a fraction of individual liberty, citizens say to the critic: “What’s the big deal? Why are you overreacting?” They laugh and continue on their way.  Over time, the State accumulates more and more power, and people born into the bureaucracy never even realize that there was once a time when they could perform activities “A-Z” without having to go through a maze of red tape. Like Shin Dong-hyuk, who was born into a North Korean prison camp, they can lack the ability to understand what’s really going on because they’ve never experienced anything else.

Obviously, New Yorkers do not experience anything like the North Korean gulags, but on some levels the kind of despotism they regularly put up with is worse — they’ve been made to crave it. American despotism is like the drug that makes people feel good as it destroys their ambition, hopes and dreams. As their lives crumble around them they simply demand more. They delude themselves into thinking that it isn’t their own behavior or the actions of the dealer who is to blame for the ills that befall them, but some other boogeyman. Often times the person trying to help them break the addiction is labeled the bad guy.

So who are the drug dealers? Ask yourself: Is MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry one of them?

“We have never invested in public education as much as we should have, because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of “These are our children”; so part of it is that we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments,” (Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC promotional video).

That was a promo for her show. That wasn’t some off-the-cuff remark during a live taping. That was what she sat down and wrote to convey to the world who she is and what she represents. And when guys like me said it was sort-kinda-Communist to the ears, we were accused of seeing an agenda that wasn’t there. Well, it’s hard to say an agenda isn’t there when like-minded politicians start seriously floating about mandatory parenting classes.

The Borg is here…and you will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Check out Lee Doran’s take as well if you get a chance.

Related: NYC considers ban on e-cigarettes because its officials are addicted to power

Related: Mayor Bloomberg: Soda Jerk serves up soft tyranny

Related: When idiots dream big, they dream of Mayor Bloomberg