Racing Pell–Mell Toward Harrison Bergeron’s World. . .

Bedtime Stories Help Kids—So Ban Them?

Yeh, this sort of thing pops up in the Every Child Left Behind bunch every now and then. Key bots from the article:

“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. . .

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


“I don’t think that parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children. . . ” but he does think that, from what is presented.

[N.B. The quoted material isn’t from the writer of the article at Intellectual Takeout but quoted from the article she references, Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?, a 2015 ABC, Australia, article..]

Yes, there really are people who seem to think that parents should be less loving and offer fewer opportunities for bonding and for intellectual stimulation to their children, because. . . reasons (that are inhuman and unimaginable by anyone who does very rightly care for their children).

Screw ’em with a rusty chainsaw. Do the right thing instead of listening to such monsters.

3 Replies to “Racing Pell–Mell Toward Harrison Bergeron’s World. . .”

  1. But it isn’t right that the children of people who believe in actually raising a child should be more blessed and successful than the children of people who really couldn’t give a rat’s patootie about anyone but themselves, including their own children. We must sand down the high spots and fill in the deeps with the refuse. Only then can we seem as noble as the rest.

    And Mr. Bergeron needs to stop being superior too. He’s making the rest of us feel bad about ourselves. And in the postmodern world that’s the ultimate sin.


  2. The preceding was of course, tongue in cheek. It’s sad that I might have to explain that to some of your recent commenters.

Leave a Reply to Perri Nelson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *