I confess I had a slithering oozing feeling years ago that this argument presented by this academic from England would ultimately, would finally be made. Today was the day. I had a sense, like rubbing sandpaper on sunburned skin, that the insanity of progressive perversions of the once-noble aspirations of equality and honorable decent parenting would invert virtue into a social evil. That day has now arrived.
In my late night reading, which I really should not do so often, because it just upsets me and makes it more difficult to sleep, even if I consume gallons of Sleepy Time herbal tea, I found this article on National Review Online titled If You Read To Your Kids You Are Unfairly Disadvantaging Others. Here is the link: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417997/professor-if-you-read-your-kids-youre-unfairly-disadvantaging-others-katherine-timpf May 6, 2015
The article is by Katherine Timpf, who I have found to be an illuminating and clear-thinking writer. The gist of the article is that according to a professor Adam Swift at the University of Warwick in England, (no surprise there, for England has become, in many regards, a moral cesspool) “parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.”
Get it? Good parents are not good because the beneficial effects of good parenting—you know, raising decent, thoughtful, honorable children—places the children of not so good parents at a disadvantage. Those little moppets from less than good parents are now deemed by this perverse professor to be disadvantaged. And there is no social justice sin as vulgar and unfair as being disadvantaged.
Swift did concede that “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” and so, in his infinite beneficence, he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes: “I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally.”
Just from time to time, good parents should set aside a moment to reflect upon the social horrors that good children inflict on the larger, evidently not so good, society.
Not content with trashing good parents, although in an inconsistent and backhanded way, Swift then set his sights on trashing elite private schools. Elite schools, he went on to opine, are not justified because they do not advance some curious concept he coined as “familial relationship goods.”
Strong loving familial relationships are not shared virtuous bonds of the mind and soul; they are now essentially economic ‘goods,’ and with any goods, some have ’em and some don’t, and for those that don’t, well, that just ain’t fair. It’s ‘disadvantaging.’
“It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realize these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school,” and that “we could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to elite family relationships.”
According to Timpf, Swift “flirted” with the idea of “simply abolishing the family” as a way of “solving the social justice problem” because “there would be a more level playing field” if we did, but ultimately concluded that “it is in the child’s interest to be parented” and that “parenting a child makes for what we call a distinctive and special contribution to the flourishing and well-being of adults.”
Think of the awesome, unceasing power of the State that would have to be unleashed to create such a level playing field!!! And who decides when the field is sufficiently level?
The take-away here, as I see it, is that excellence, integrity, achievement and the pursuit of knowledge are to be subverted to the lowest common denominator level of humanity. Good parenting now becomes injustice; now the good parent must not only act in the best interests of his or her child but be attentive to an infinite number of children he or she does no know, will never meet, for whom he or she has no responsibility and regarding children that are entirely unaccountable to that good parent.
This is what social justice means to our progressive collectivist engineers.
Other questions rise with volcanic force. What is an ‘elite’ school? Who decides? When does an elite school devolve into merely a good school and at what measurable point does the merely good school no longer disadvantage some twit who can find comfort in being and doing and knowing nothing?
The implications of Swift’s thinking are vast in scope and demonic in practice. Read the entire article. But parents should be placed on notice by Timpf’s article: the State is coming after you, for good parenting is now a cause of inequality, and no concept is more sacred, although few more perverse, than equality.