Question How are academics totally blind to critical childhood studies?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?