Unloved Kids

I just saw a horrible video of Feinstein talking to a group of kids whose parents detest them. Nothing is sadder than unloved kids.

I grew up in the USSR at the time when it seemed eternal. My parents hated it, just hated it. It had ground up their lives, it offered not a glimmer of hope. But I thought I lived in the best society in the world and was very content with the political system. Because my parents didn’t hate me to the extent that these kids’ rich parents hate them.

I mean, some people can spare their children this kind of existential anxiety in a fucking totalitarian regime. What’s these fuckers’ excuse?

I’m Not a Man

Like Orthodox Jews thank God for not making them a woman, I often thank God for not making me a man. Because then I wouldn’t get to spend weeks planning a toddler birthday party, designing invitations, getting the unicorn decor, stuffing 24 goody bags with unicorn poop, unicorn bath toys, unicorn blowers, and unicorn candy bracelets, tying each bag with a tiny rainbow tie, and putting a sticker of their own design on each, planning snacks for kids and adults, and then unpacking the presents*, and writing thank you cards to each friend with another sticker of their own design.

This is really a ton of fun. I wouldn’t want to be deprived of it for anything. I know I’m supposed to be all, OMG, this is unpaid labor, I’m such a victim. But this is so enjoyable, I wouldn’t miss it for anything.

And yeah, yeah, men can do it if they want and somebody somewhere must have even seen a man who has done it. But 99,99% of this stuff is done by women. Because we are smart and know that this kind of stuff makes you live longer.

* We hid most of the gifts and are introducing them at a rate of about 1 or 2 gifts per week. By fourth of July, we’ll get through all of them. She’s little and wouldn’t enjoy dozens of gifts at once. This way, she has time to explore each gift in detail.

Universal Pre-K Is a Bad Idea

Here is why universal pre-K is a very bad idea.

The whole point of pre-K is to facilitate women being in the workplace, right? Workplace can mean two things. One is a career and another one is a job. The difference is that a job is something you can leave for 3, 4, 5 years and then go back. If you are a cashier at a supermarket and you leave the job when you have a kid, you can go back to being a cashier several years later. But if you have a career, there’s nothing to go back to.

The only reason I put Klara in daycare at six months is that the alternative was to abandon my career forever. That was absolutely the only reason. And it was very, very hard to do. (If you have no problem being separated from a 6-month-old child for several hours a day, something is very wrong with you. If you still have this problem when the child is six years old, that’s not normal either.)

It’s the same for a doctor, a software developer, a dentist, a business owner, a marketing specialist, etc, etc. Once you leave a career, all you can get when you go back is a job.

Now, who’s going to fund this universal pre-K? Let’s forget all the childishness about billionaires paying for it. In countries where it exists, the people who pay for it are people like me. And if you are reading this blog, like you. People with careers are taxed to pay for pre-K for people with jobs. As a result, paying for pre-K becomes a lot harder for people with careers who actually need it and who’ll never qualify for the government-sponsored daycare.

The only reason that this makes sense is because it will be very profitable for tech companies. What do you think kids will do much of the day in these cheap governmental daycares? They will stare at screens. Even at expensive private places you need to wage a guerrilla warfare to prevent this from happening. But if you don’t even pay for it, if you are a cashier with a job, how much say will you have when there is a concerted effort to turn your child into a tech consumer from infancy?

I don’t see any other explanation for the simultaneous push for guaranteed basic income to facilitate people with jobs (as opposed to careers) staying at home and the effort to take their kids out of the home. If people with jobs are becoming superfluous in today’s economy and you need measures to keep them fed while they don’t work, then why is there a need for a measure that guarantees the possibility of these folks to hold the jobs that don’t exist?

Of course, there is a more sinister explanation that it’s about brainwashing the children of the undesirables into compliance with the ruling ideology. The deplorables are clearly unhappy with the globalization and the ideological uniformity it requires, so their kids can’t be allowed to be in contact with them too much. I favor the economic explanation I offered above but this one makes sense, too.