We know little about the mother in question because the article doesn’t really focus on her. I suspect the reason for that is that the author of the article is afraid the public won’t like this poor victim-wannabe if they knew more about her. What we do know is that she’s a 27 year-old single mom who lives in a suburb of Dallas and she goes by the name Kaitlyn Walls... making her one of the tidal wave of Kātlins that struck at about the same time.
Caitlin interviewed for and got a job at a day care center. The day her new job began, she wrote this on Facebook:
“I start my new job today, but I absolutely hate working at daycares.”Whoops. Sure enough, someone told the employer what Katelyn wrote and her offer was rescinded. She then ran to the press to enshrine her victimhood. Based on the comments to the article, however, she didn’t get the response she expected. She says she actually cried at the hate she received. Boo hoo.
“LOL, it’s all good, I just really hate being around a lot of kids.”
In the article, Kaitlin assures us that firing her (an inaccurate assessment of what happened) was unfair because she didn’t mean it. In fact, she assures us that “I don’t hate children. I have my own…I love her.” And she lets us know that “It really hurt because I wasn’t trying to offend anybody.”
Ah, the smell of self-centeredness.
Let me start by pointing out why “firing” her was not unfair:
(1) Working at a day care center requires an affinity for children. Not only did Catelyn just admit to not being suited for the job (“I hate working at daycares”), but she specifically admitted to having an attitude that is a huge red flag in that industry: “I just really hate being around a lot of kids.” People with that attitude are the ones who end up on camera smacking kids or otherwise abusing them, something a day care center cannot tolerate. So it not only makes sense to “fire” her, but it’s really the only choice a responsible day care center would have.And let me toss this out there. I don’t know Catelynn, but I can guess with 99.9% certainty that Caitlyn would bitch up a storm if an employee at the daycare center where she leaves her little Bryttannee said, “I hate little kids.” She would probably be all over Facebook writing that the center needed to fire this rotten, insensitive human. You know I’m right.
Her suggestion that somehow she didn’t really mean it doesn’t hold water either. People don’t spit out negative untruths about themselves. “Man, I really hate short people! LOL!” No, people don’t do that unless the thing they spew out is something they already believe.
Further, how is the employer supposed to know the difference between those who are just saying offensive things for fun and those who really mean it? And does it matter? It doesn’t seem to matter to liberals when the thing said offends them.
Also, this idea that she loves her daughter, is misdirection, not a defense. There is a substantive distance between loving your own child and disproving your own assertion that you hate groups of other people’s kids.
(2) Most likely, Kateline lied during the interview. I have no doubt that she was asked how she liked working at day care centers and what she thinks of watching groups of kids. You can be sure she told the employer that she loves both. Her Facebook post reveals that to be a lie. And an employee who lies about something that significant will lie about anything. That is a good reason to fire an employee who would otherwise occupy a position of trust.
At the very least, Kaitlynn just revealed a poisonous attitude of the kind that gets people fired even without ever being caught saying anything specifically bad.
(3) Caitline also has shown that she lacks the necessary filter to be given a position of trust. The day care center can more than reasonably worry based on this incident that she will be gossiping about the children in her charge and their parents. Again, that is reason to fire someone.
What I find interesting here is the liberalism...
● “I didn’t do wrong because I didn’t intend to offend.” That’s very liberal: only intent matters.From the comments, you can also add these defenses of her:
● “What I did doesn’t matter because I didn’t mean it.” Again, liberals believe intent is all that matters.
● “It should be up to the employer to prove that I was serious and that I intended something wrong.” This is a classic example of how liberals decide disputes: the most powerful partner bears the responsibility unless there is absolute proof of intentional wrongful conduct by the whinier party.
● “I can’t imagine why this would be bad other than if I really meant it.” Demonstrating an utter lack of responsibility and a lack of a grasp on the bigger picture. This belief again fits perfectly with liberalism, which loves to narrow issues to the here and now and simplify them to strip away any responsibility on the part of their designated victim.
● “The employer shouldn’t be allowed to ‘pry’ into things Katelinn said online.” How is it prying when something is said for all the world to hear? This is a classic example of the liberal penchant for relieving bad people of the responsibility of their actions. This is also the liberal penchant for elevating procedure over substance... who cares if we now have proof he was the killer, we get that proof the wrong way.And again, it would be very liberal to apply one standard here and then a different standard when they find themselves on the other side.
● “The evil person in this is the person who reported her comments to the employer.” Liberals love to deflect blame. You see this when liberals attack the police who do the arresting rather than the criminal who gave cause to be arrested.