Maria Guido, a writer over at the website Mommyish, sarcastically wrote a little poem a few weeks back in response to the Galunker book that’s coming out. In it she defiles all Pit Bulls as vicious animals that will eat your children’s face off. She writes…
What a genius idea to teach children not to be afraid of this breed. Maybe they’ll start approaching them more, because that hasn’t proven to have disastrous results or anything. This is a joke.
So wait, as opposed to the idea of teaching children to be afraid of certain types of dog? That would fix things or be more helpful?
I have a few brilliant ideas actually. How about you teach your children to not negatively stereotype dogs simply based on the way that they look, you know, because that might lead to them growing up and doing the exact same thing to human beings. Secondly, how about you teach your children how to behave around all dogs? You know, for their safety? Teach them what’s appropriate, what’s not. Teach them boundaries. That way they’ll actually be equipped with legitimate information to apply to their interactions with all dogs, instead of a false sense of security that only certain dogs are capable of harming them. How about that? No?
Guido then goes on to characterize all Pit Bull owners as people who have no interest in public safety, but rather as people that care more about blaming others than having empathy for victims of whatever tragic incident that might happen. This is a running theme in many of her articles. She uses screenshots of statements coming from individual people as evidence to collectively blame all Pit Bull owners, and as she complains about Pit Bull owners “blaming” everything else. Funny, but more pathetic and sad to be honest. This excerpt, taken from the same poem, relays her message quite well…
So listen to me kid, these dogs are just trouble. And their owners are worse, maybe even double.
Nice. See how it’s all so simple? I suppose I’ll be called the same thing if she’s to ever read this… That I’m blaming her by suggesting that she drop the discriminatory shtick and dually focus on the idea of educating children about safety precautions around all dogs as well as the idea of treating things as individuals instead of scapegoating them in groups. How dare I do such a thing!
As I looked further into Guido’s posts I began seeing many that were addressing Pit Bulls. I saw her actually source the anti-Pit Bull hate group DogsBite.org while lazily delving into the topic of dog-related human fatalities. That’s always great. In another sweeping Pit Bull rant from April she ends by stating the following…
Any animal that can be provoked to mauling someone because it’s tail is pulled or it’s food is touched should not be legal to own.
Wait, is that Guido actually talking about individual dogs and their behavior, or is that Guido essentially implying that all Pit Bulls will do these things, and thus need to be banned? That answer is obvious, as you simply need to look at Guido’s actual journalistic record. Hell, mere paragraphs above this very statement she says that Pit Bulls “have this annoying propensity of occasionally ripping innocent children apart.” No mention about the millions upon millions that never, ever do such a thing. Yet they are the ones that will suffer due in part to her erroneous blathering.
But then today Ms. Guido put out an interesting post… Its title? Banning “chasing games” won’t stop kids from getting hurt. That’s ironic. You know, considering that she seems to want to ban Pit Bulls and all. So there seems to now be an obvious question: Will banning Pit Bulls stop kids from getting hurt by dogs? Of course it won’t, but that’s highly inconvenient information.
So Guido takes a nanny state approach that’s centered around collectively blaming both dogs and people in 1 instance, and then complains about these same exact tactics in another instance. She asks… “Really? What should we stop next?” Damn, I’d ask her the same thing in regards to dogs! Because if she were to ever achieve her desire of eliminating millions of dogs that simply fit a vague physical description, what would happen when another dog eventually seriously injured or killed a child? Because that will happen, and it will continue to randomly happen. Would she want to regulate or ban that dog breed or type? Then ban another? And another?
Weeks earlier she went after people standing up for the 2nd Amendment in the wake of that psychopath Elliot Rodger murdering people in California with both guns and knives. Interestingly there was no focus on the knife, which he used to kill half of his victims. She took issue with the unkind words someone used, which is a fair point I suppose (I wouldn’t have used his words but it’s his right to be an idiot), but failed to appreciate the larger point he was trying to make. Then, just yesterday, she mocked the New Jersey Department of Children and Families for threatening to remove a child from his home because he was “twirling his pencil like a gun” in school. She described the situation as being “invasive, terrifying, out of hand, and a nightmare.”
Earth to Maria: That’s what happens when you give control freaks the ability to lazily indict things based on ignorant characterizations and not individual circumstance and evidence. That’s what happens when you embolden the state to start banning objects instead of focusing on the specific individuals who are using said objects to cause murder and mayhem. This is the blatant feeding of a vilification campaign, and then that campaign bearing its nasty fruits. You can’t have 1 idea without the other eventually being pushed. Banning agendas always lead to the acceleration of other tactics meant to exploit the things having anything to do with that which is being scapegoated!
Last week she wrote about someone leaving a loaded gun in a Target store and then lamented people online for suggesting that it was planted. She said that “blaming this on a group of moms is just pathetic.” I’d agree! So with that, please consider being a little more consistent and stop your perpetuation of group-blaming when it fits your heinous messaging against Pit Bull-type dogs and their owners. Thanks.
a walking talking contradiction…but I find that to be “consistent” with the pit bull haters..