48

4w recently published an article about the pedophilic underbelly of critical childhood studies (ccs). A few users posted about it so I’ll link them here:

https://ovarit.com/o/WomensLiberation/90854/critical-childhood-studies-new-academic-field-dismantles-safeguarding

https://ovarit.com/o/WomensLiberation/90196/critical-childhood-studies-new-academic-field-dismantles-safeguarding

In short, many of the ccs scholars quoted have a central argument of dismantling the very existence of childhood and viewing children as “young adults.” They have also tied their work to both critical race studies and queer theory.

Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but there’s two things I’m not getting here. For one, why do we even need an academic field devoted to the dismantling of childhood? Besides pedophilia, what is the purpose of this? What benefit do these studies bring to the lives of children? I’ve tried to read the publications written by these scholars, and I’m not convinced that this area brings much to the playing field, let alone academic ideas.

Secondly, how are other academics not seeing through this nonsense? To argue that children have a sexuality and that black children are deprived of childhood unlike white children is counterintuitive and dangerous. We know from scientific studies that young adults don’t finish puberty until their mid-20s. To argue that children have a sexuality and are capable of consent is something that Freud supported, and we know now that he was a quack. Why don’t other academics openly push back against this field? I understand why most scholars don’t want to be openly gender critical, since gender studies has a much larger following than ccs, but this seems like an area where they can openly disagree on the existence of this field.

There are so many female scholars who are being pushed out of universities for a multitude of reasons, so why is no one paying attention to this?

4w recently published an article about the pedophilic underbelly of critical childhood studies (ccs). A few users posted about it so I’ll link them here: https://ovarit.com/o/WomensLiberation/90854/critical-childhood-studies-new-academic-field-dismantles-safeguarding https://ovarit.com/o/WomensLiberation/90196/critical-childhood-studies-new-academic-field-dismantles-safeguarding In short, many of the ccs scholars quoted have a central argument of dismantling the very existence of childhood and viewing children as “young adults.” They have also tied their work to both critical race studies and queer theory. Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but there’s two things I’m not getting here. For one, why do we even need an academic field devoted to the dismantling of childhood? Besides pedophilia, what is the purpose of this? What benefit do these studies bring to the lives of children? I’ve tried to read the publications written by these scholars, and I’m not convinced that this area brings much to the playing field, let alone academic ideas. Secondly, how are other academics not seeing through this nonsense? To argue that children have a sexuality and that black children are deprived of childhood unlike white children is counterintuitive and dangerous. We *know* from scientific studies that young adults don’t finish puberty until their mid-20s. To argue that children have a sexuality and are capable of consent is something that Freud supported, and we know now that he was a quack. Why don’t other academics openly push back against this field? I understand why most scholars don’t want to be openly gender critical, since gender studies has a much larger following than ccs, but this seems like an area where they can openly disagree on the existence of this field. There are so many female scholars who are being pushed out of universities for a multitude of reasons, so why is no one paying attention to this?

35 comments

I'm sorry i don't have an answer but i have wondered the exact same about Foucault who is basically the gender god, the one that Butler references and he was pretty openly a child rapist. He got away with it because he raped brown kids in Morocco. And everyone is like: that's totally cool, nothing to see here.

I think we have a LOT more pedos and child rapists than we think. And they are everywhere and especially in positions of power. The Maxwell court documents are sealed for 75 years... Why. Likely because they implicated a shit ton of currently still active politicians and business men. And literally nobody cares and nothing will happen to them.

I just feel so helpless.

Have you heard of Helmut Kentler? He was a German "sexologist" who was "well-respected" for some reason. He turned out to be a pedophile, thought pedophilia was okay, and actually put children (homeless children or orphaned children, I think) in foster homes with pedophiles. And people let this happen... It's sickening

God, we have to break Guinness Book of World Records for oldest women alive to find out who is named.

I wonder if anyone could leak the documents. If it can happen with Supreme Court drafts...

[–] BlackCirce 🔮🐖🐖🐖 18 points
  1. Academic freedom means professors / scholars are allowed to question any ideas they want. If they want to dismantle the concept of childhood they are free to do so, and to tell them no they can’t is a violation of their rights.

  2. This is justified by the presumption that academic viruses don’t jump hosts. That is, no one really cares what academics in area studies are doing. Dismantling childhood is an academic exercise that can’t harm anyone. It even sounds ridiculous. Everyone knows children exist, so we assume an academic notion that they don’t will break like a wave breaks on a wall.

  3. Radical feminists have been driven out of academia and radical feminist analysis is verboten. Radical feminists are the mean prude mommies of the left. We are always putting the kisbosh on everyone’s(?) fun by insisting that sexual harm exists and should be prevented not by dissembling the harm so that it can no longer be spoken, or reframing the experience of harm into an experience of agency, but by telling people (usually men) NO and punishing those who violate that no.

[–] Owlchaser 9 points Edited

Everyone knows children exist, so we assume an academic notion that they don’t will break like a wave breaks on a wall.

Everyone knew women existed, until a few years ago.

Mean prude mommies hit the nail on the head

Yeah, mean prude mommies but whose comfort do you think everyone will be screaming for when they’ve been hurt? Everyone hates mommy until they need a hug.

the presumption that academic viruses don’t jump hosts

This is something I myself (mistakenly) believed for a long time. I never liked 'post-modernism' (or queer theory, for that matter), but since I'd only really ever learned about it within the context of academic literary studies, I never considered that it could become such a huge problem in every day life as it is now.

Because most men are pedophiles or hebephiles and they hide it in plain sight under many guises, academic research in this case. I'm guessing the female scholars in this field are predatory too or enablers. Most women can't or won't believe the prevalence of men attracted to children and teens, and the ones who do speak out about are gaslighted and labeled as crazy religious conspiracy theorists who are sexualizing children.

It seems like most people in ccs are women. Which is why you’d think they’d use their power to promote more important ideas…

This isn't exactly useful, but have you read the book "The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory"? It's a great book about Sigmund Freud's changing views on children and sexuality and trauma. At first he thought that sexual abuse of children, especially within the home was much more common than suspected, and that this understandably caused tons of trauma because how are children supposed to understand what has happened to them. He proposed his theory but everyone else hated it (hmm, wonder why) and isolated him, so Freud began to change his "seduction theory." Initially he believed that his patients were describing traumatic sexual abuse that had actually happened, but Freud had to change his theory, so he came up with his solution to solve the discrepancy: it was children who were "fantasizing" about it. Just all in their heads. I don't think Freud thought that children were able to consent, but clearly he did a lot of damage and ensured that survivors of childhood abuse would be disbelieved.

Don't know if I'm remembering this correctly, but I think I read somewhat that a lot of his earlier patients were the daughters of his wealthy male friends.... obviously, the fact that he was discovering they had sexually abused their own children was a problem and it had to be suppressed.

You are correct, and it’s how he came up with his concept of hysteria.

I remember reading about that. Freud was many things but a feminist ally he never was, though perhaps that's not unexpected for his time. Still, he was clearly unable to empathize with women and girls much. Hence the penis envy theory, when the real reason for any female rage aimed at men were the constraints even his upper class patients had to live within.

From one of the links: “Characterized by its intersections with such fields as gender studies, disability studies, race studies, queer studies, and animal studies, the field of critical childhood studies offers scholars a rich interpretive methodology to explore questions related to difference, power, affect, and subjectivity.”

I notice some important fields that CCS isn't "intersecting" with...like childhood development. One has to remain 100% ignorant of any and all research into how children actually develop physically, cognitively, and emotionally to believe any of this CCS nonsense.

Because child development studies involve hard sciences, CCS is theoretically musing.

THIS.

Thank you. The total silence about childhood development from the "critical theory/studies" crowd is deafening. They pretend as if they've already debunked knowledge from disciplines they do not "intersect" with. In reality, they show complete ignorance of it.

The whole 'field' of 'trans healthcare' in general completely ignores everything that is known about actual childhood development.

Yeh like there’s loads of psychological studies into childhood development - maybe start there..?

Many academics just aren’t that smart so write incomprehensible gibberish to cover up that fact (looking at you Judith Butler)

Yes. It was hilarious to read the interview where she spoke about the invasion of Ukraine. Her word salad in that context was clearly shown to be rather stupid crap. So it was her esoteric field which protected her earlier.

I think academia is just rotten to the core. CCS does not surprise me after everything I've seen some out of gender studies departments. If you get a bunch of upper class with no real world experience or empathy and lock them in an ivory tower, they're going to produce some horrifying content. It also seems like academia naturally encourages this bullshit. I don't work in academia so I might be talking out my ass a bit but from the outside, it seems like the goal of career academics is just to publish. Doesn't matter if it's good for society, or true, or honest, publishing content pays the bills so you grab an idea that hasn't been explored yet and go for it. The more controversial the better.

When I first hear about CCS I thought it would be some standard stuff about examining how a child's pysche and development are affected in the internet age, maybe some stuff examining and reforming how kids learn to find out what types of schooling are most affective, etc. But it's been infiltrated by creepy pedophiles. The amount of people I hear saying "wellllllll childhood didn't really exist as a concept until recently" as if that's a good thing is frightening. A lot of people involved in CCS don't realize that childhood was not a concept in the past not because people didn't consider it a separate life stage, but because pedophiliac men running society wanted to rape young girls, and then take the children of those rape victims and make them work brutal industrial jobs at young ages. It's telling a lot of these CCS pedo advocates don't focus on dismantling childhood to defend child labor laws or make younger kids go to work early. They're only concerned about kids and their sexuality because there is a clear agenda here.

Secondly, how are other academics not seeing through this nonsense?

Because anyone who speaks up or questions ANYTHING is labelled a "Fascist xyzphobe", harassed, threatened, their family stalked and threatened, and forced out of their jobs.

For one, why do we even need an academic field devoted to the dismantling of childhood?

Would love to know who’s funding them for a start. Historically “childhood” is a relatively new social convention, in medieval times children were really seen as young adults and expected to act as so.

Language is so powerful, if the capitalist class can convince you through studies that children are “young adults” then they can also imply that children CAN and SHOULD work. Am I being paranoid? Think about it, labour laws restricting child labour were only properly implemented how long ago? And only in the west. Plenty of child labour going on all around the world and it’s the same story - they work to support their families.

I agree that something stinks but i don’t think it’s all based around child molesters, the powers that be have fucked with gender now they want to open their supply of labour… again.

I think it's also just generally a way to take decision-making power from parents.

Sickening.

Some of this is the "publish-or-perish" rule of academia. If you pick something contrarian to mainstream thought you are much more likely to be published because of that "both sides" debate format (though apparently they are scrapping that, too, at least in gender identity cult). Then those who are not in the same field really don't find out about any of this or if they do don't think it's their business or within their capabilities to invest time and effort in something that won't help them to get tenured or promoted.

I'm not making excuses for anyone, but thinking about why certain things aren't addressed until someone is harmed. But it's also true that when "queer theory" entered academia I thought it would remain isolated in its own little bubble. I never thought it would cause attempts to change laws one day or that the meaning of 'woman' would be so furiously challenged. So maybe some in academia think this way about this new field, too.

[–] DoomedSibyl 0 points Edited

Dismantling womanhood and now dismantling childhood as socially recognized and legally protected categories. Women and children will of course continue to exist. Except that sexual predators will have complete access to them sexually and reproductively and as labor slaves without even the minor inconveniences of the current toothless laws. Who wants to bet that once women and children are entirely commodified and enslaved that the men in dresses will pretty much go away except for being a fetish?

Load more (2 comments)