It strikes me as strange when I am trying to take someone's side, yet they get upset because I don't agree with them hard enough.
This happened recently where a woman was saying there aren't more libertarian women because she feels looked-down upon because she doesn't home school, and she feels that this is because other libertarians see educating the children as "a woman's responsibility". This seems utterly bizarre to me, but OK.
"Unschooling doesn't require a particular gendered parent to facilitate the unschooling. (Neither does traditional "homeschooling") Either/or... or both. Why would anyone demand it's the 'woman's place' to help the children gain an education? That's just dumb. I think kinderprison is a tragedy for the kids. Yet, my daughter's mom insists she attend (against her will), and my relatives (who are almost all involved in government schooling) back her up. Now my daughter has zero interest in learning anything- which she did before she was subjected to school. There will be consequences for my daughter's life. And I would very happily be the parent helping her to unschool- only partially because I see kinderprison as child abuse.
I know circumstances often make it seem impossible to save kids from 'public school'- and maybe it's almost impossible. But I really don't see it as aimed against women."
I probably could have worded some parts better and more clearly, but this was an off-the-cuff response where it seemed to me she was getting piled on by people making quasi-religious points about a woman's greatest privilege and highest calling and so forth. I honestly thought I was taking her side.
Her reply seemed to indicate she was angry with my comment because her kindergarten-age son loves school and does well in it.
Even if your kid loves "public" schools, and thrives under Prussian-style training, that doesn't justify the existence of a theft-funded, coercively imposed "system". And I'm sorry if that truth hurts your feelings. It's not about women versus men- although I'm sure some would like to see it that way.
Some people love having cops around. It's still unethical to hire them with stolen money and have them impose counterfeit "laws" on people. No amount of your appreciation, support, and flourishing can ever change that. Evil sometimes works very well, and some people love it. It's still wrong.
Some people thrive in criminal gangs. Some people find their apparent full potential as a burglar or as a kidnapper. They find self-worth and value in strange places. Some people do well in prison. Some people just love their Stockholm Syndrome.
Even if there is something I love, and feel I couldn't live without, I know it is never right- it simply can't be right- to use the political means to get it. Never. Not even if I love it and thrive with it as currently "provided" by government. I'm not so delicate that reality will offend me and make me feel picked-on.
I understand- there are government schools. My opposition to them isn't going to make them magically go away. My own daughter attends one. Even if she loved it, and was doing better in it than she would be doing without it (which I can't know without a "control"), it would be wrong of me to support government schools. That would be selfish. I also have no issue with people using government "services" they are forced to pay for whether they use them or not. I might prefer people shun them on principle to make them useless and unused, but that's not realistic.
If I am attacking the theft and coercion behind some things, don't take it as an attack on you for using those things- unless you start being nasty in defense of the status quo and making it about some tangent that buzzes your bonnet. In that case, since you identify so strongly with unethical acts, feel free to take it personally. And also in that case, feel free to suppose I wasn't taking your side in the first place.
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.