SJWs: Having A Loving Family Is Apparently An Unfair Advantage

Which can lead to all sorts of Bad Things, like your kids doing well in school and life, but, some other kid may not do so well

Reading to children at bedtime: ABC questions value of time-honoured practice

“Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?” asks a story on the ABC’s website. (WT note: that’s the actual headline)

“Should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?”

The story was followed by a broadcast on the ABC’s Radio National that also tackled the apparently divisive issue of bedtime reading.

“Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t — the difference in their life chances — is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,” British academic Adam Swift told ABC presenter Joe Gelonesi.

Gelonesi responded online: “This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion that perhaps — in the interests of levelling the playing field — bedtime stories should also be restricted.”

Sadly, this is a real thing. This does not come from The Onion or some other satire site. From the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company) article

So many disputes in our liberal democratic society hinge on the tension between inequality and fairness: between groups, between sexes, between individuals, and increasingly between families.

The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time. Now, philosophers Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse have felt compelled to conduct a cool reassessment.

Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.

Got that? It’s a Bad Thing for a parent to do what is best for his/her child.

So, what to do?

According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

Swift, though, has reservations about going full Plato in wanting The State to raise the children. But doesn’t really offer another solution.

‘What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children’.

“…allow parents to do for their children..” That should give everyone chills.

What about giving kids nutritious food? Is that an unfair advantage?

Perhaps, instead of talking about restricting successful parents and families, we should be looking for ways to make the dysfunctional families more successful.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “SJWs: Having A Loving Family Is Apparently An Unfair Advantage”

  1. Odssyeus says:

    If you love your children….why do you hate humanity. Lexus(hybrid) liberals of the world take your carbon spewing spawn from their private academies and remove theme from their pristine soccer fields. Have you considered foster care, then they too could be leveled with state sponsored neglect and likely abuse. Then they too can love big brother or sister.

  2. Hank_M says:

    This is scary stuff. But completely in line with the long term goal of the left where govt controls everything – all for the common good of course or so they say.

    Really, what is the difference between modern day progressives and totalitarians?

  3. USMCMGB says:

    Typical Progressive nonsense. Always reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator. Don’t ever think about raising the lowest up. Always drag the upper down. I’d be curious to hear how they would enforce this. Cameras in Juniors bedroom? Neighborhood snitches? Or is it just going to be the honor system?

  4. john says:

    Perhaps some might consider it unfair but then again more would probably fail to recognize the privileges that were granted to them by circumstance

  5. JGlanton says:

    We should only allow POTUS to read books to our children to ensure that they get the approved sense of social justice.

  6. john says:

    Well Teach do YOU personally have any skin in the game (literally)
    Are you raising many children to be good little conservatives ? I thought true narcissistic liberal warmists would not even consider having children why would they be even concerned about reading to children at night?

  7. JGlanton says:

    In the socialist state, your children, your house, and your car, and your freedom do not belong to you and will be taken by the state if you do not expose them to state-approved reading materials.

    Like Kentucky, for example:

    An off-grid homeschool family of 12 in rural Kentucky was raided, the mother arrested, and the 10 children seized simply because the government disagrees with their lifestyle and their educational choices, family members and friends say.

    Until Wednesday, Joe and Nicole Naugler lived with their 10 kids in a cabin on 26 acres in Breckinridge County, about an hour southwest of Louisville.

    “They are an extremely happy family,” family friend Pace Ellsworth told Off The Grid News.

    Acting on an anonymous tip about the family’s off-grid lifestyle, sheriff’s officers entered the property and home Wednesday, and even blocked the access road to the family property, the family says. Joe and eight of the children were away, but Nicole – who is five-months pregnant – was home with the two oldest kids. Sheriff deputies then seemingly allowed Nicole and the two children to drive away but they got only a short distance before deputies pulled them over and took the two children away from the mom, who was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

    Later, the sheriff ordered Joe to turn over the other children by 10 a.m. or be arrested for felony charges, the family says. He complied.

    Deputies also threatened to impound the car, although a friend of the family convinced the deputies to allow Joe to have it back.

  8. Oldav8r says:

    “..what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that wedidn’t need to allow parents to do for their children..”

    Ah the progressive “we” who are self appointed to make the decisions for us lesser beings.

  9. jl says:

    Next liberal newsflash: It’s been determined that being fast and strong gives one an unfair advantage in sports! The unfairness of it all….

  10. Jeffery says:

    Just another dog-whistle post that lets you guys bash progressives, even though it wasn’t related to liberals or progressives. You guys blame progressives for everything, lol.

    The article was from Australia. Conservative Australia. Oy! Where they hate the theory of AGW. What is typically conservative are your responses – all about trying to control what others talk about, write and think.

    In the socialist state, your children, your house, and your car, and your freedom do not belong to you and will be taken by the state if you do not expose them to state-approved reading materials.

    Regarding the unrelated minipost: Every state has had laws requiring the education of children. The states have minimal requirements for what constitutes “home-schooling” or “unschooling” as Mrs. Naugler calls it. My sympathies go out to the Naugler family for their legal difficulties. I hope they resolve them with little further disruption to their family.

    Do you really think the laws requiring school attendance are part of a socialist ploy to control children? These laws are present in all advanced nations.

    Do you think parents “own” their children to use and abuse and ignore as they see fit? What defense do children have against abuse?

    Most states require that parents either send their children to public, private or parochial school or home-school them with an accredited curriculum.

    Here’s a summary of the home-school requirements in KY. Hardly onerous unless you believe that any and all government is bad.

    I also found it interesting that self-identified off-grid anarchists are so active on Facebook soliciting donations and have formed a Limited-Liability Corporation for their pet grooming business (in a much nicer facility than they have for their children). An LLC is a government creation to limit the liability of business owners in case they harm or cause damage to customers or clients.

  11. […] It’s always been the left’s goal to destroy the traditional family, they just used to be a little bit more subtle about it. And they aren’t being subtle now, with talk of abolishing the family. […]

Pirate's Cove