okay, i am deeply sorry, i know a lot of you on this website are not a big fan of kids and children in general but PRETTY PLEASE can we just NOT normalize the “i don’t like/i hate children but i don’t wanna hurt them”? because, that’s not fucking possible, okay? that’s two views you can NOT simultaneously hold.
because, let’s talk for real, the problem isn’t just direct violence — it’s the dehumanization of children, which feeds prejudice against childhood, childism, and adultism. this logic IS NOT neutral, and it’s one of the most sophisticated ways prejudice gets perpetuated.
“not liking/hating children” reinforces the idea that they’re annoying, dramatic, inconvenient... less human — and therefore easier to discard, silence, or sacrifice for adult comfort.
elisabeth young-bruehl defines childism as prejudice against children as a social group, comparable to racism, sexism, and homophobia. it functions like any other -ism: an ideology that legitimizes treating a group as property, as inferior, or as available for exploitation. she also shows that childism isn’t limited to extreme cases of violence — it shows up in a whole range of practices that aren’t in children’s best interest: neglect, underfunding of schools, the abusive use of medication on children…
saying “i don’t like/i hate children” isn’t an innocent preference or just a phrase — it’s literally the biased expression of a worldview that dehumanizes and diminishes this group. that’s exactly what childism is.
young-bruehl emphasizes that adults who practice childism “all rely upon a societal prejudice against children to justify themselves and legitimate their behavior.” [p.1] a lot of people may not consciously “hate” children or raise a hand to hit them — but the prejudice allows them to tolerate structures that harm children on a massive scale (child poverty, incarceration, violence, abuse, exploitation, neglect, etc.).
rebecca adami uses the concept of childism to analyze adult resistance to actually implementing children’s rights: prejudice against children gets translated into laws, policies, and practices that deny basic freedoms and normalize their subordination. just like a racist can say “i don’t want to see black people getting hurt” while supporting policies that harm them — an adult who “hates children” is, in practice, feeding the cultural climate that makes violence against children thinkable, justifiable, or dismissed.
adami also shows that childism helps us understand how children are exposed to “prejudices, negative attitudes and discriminatory structures in society” — and how this connects to the weak implementation of the un convention on the rights of the child.
the old idea that “children are just mini adults” has been challenged by childhood sociology, and children are now recognized as rights-bearing subjects who deserve to be heard and respected in their choices.
claiming it’s “fine to dislike and/or hate children” means refusing them that status — putting them back in the position of nuisance, of “noisy things,” of objects. which is exactly what critical theory identifies as the core of adultism and childism.
madeline lane-mckinley argues we live in a world that is “deeply against children,” where they’re treated as extensions of the family, the state, or capital — not as autonomous people. she also talks about “adult supremacy” and proposes a politics of solidarity with children, understanding them as comrades in the fight for a better future.
lane-mckinley also points out that the figure of the child has historically been weaponized in service of white supremacy, empire, and political projects that decide which children deserve protection — and which ones can be abandoned to poverty, war, forced migration.
in other words, discourses of hatred and contempt for children participate in the symbolic economy that makes some children’s lives more exposed to violence.
and finally — in ethical and political terms, there is no way to separate “hating” (or “disliking”) children from passive participation in structures that authorize harm against them.
the only position that’s coherent with children’s rights and with critiques of childism is to let go of that hatred and commit to recognition, listening, and active solidarity.
so yeah. there’s no neutral ground here.
before the women’s rights movement women were viewed as property of their husband. If you went up to someone and told them you think women are an oppressed group they would laugh in your face. It was considered scientific fact that women were less intelligent and more emotional than men. Because of these “facts”, they were denied the right to vote. They did not have bodily autonomy. They could not own property . They were the most likely victims of rape and abuse. They could not divorce their husbands. They were not allowed to participate in government. They were not allowed to open a bank account. They often weren’t allowed in public without their husbands. They were not viewed as people.
Today children are viewed as property of their parents. If you went up to someone and told them you think children are an oppressed group they would laugh in your face. It’s considered scientific fact that children are less intelligent and more emotional than adults. Because of these “facts”, they are denied the right to vote. They do not have bodily autonomy. They can not own property. They are the most likely victims of rape and abuse. They can not divorce their parents. They are not allowed to participate in government. They are not allowed to open a bank account. They often aren’t allowed in public without their parents. They are not viewed as people.
the reason why the way women were treated so closely mirrors the the way children are treated today is because their oppression functions off of the same system; The idea that the father of the household has ownership over the wife, the servants/slaves, and the children. we’ve already the women’s rights movement and the civil rights movement but we’ve yet to have any youth rights movement, and until that happens children will continue to be treated like women were.
I don’t think this is abuse but it just happened and I’m really mad about it.
My dad wouldn’t let my brother (autistic) wear a short sleeve shirt to a formal event. After I started arguing with him he said that even though people could pick their clothes as adults, they can’t do that as kids.
He’s literally a teenager. He can pick short or long sleeves and “formalwear rules” are not more important than his comfort.
This is parental abuse, ableism, and childism.
Children are no less deserving of autonomy over what they wear.
okay, you know what? Running away shouldn’t be a crime. It shouldn’t be dangerous, either. Any kid should be able to leave their parents if they want, for any reason. No I’m not kidding.
“But Rue, where will these kids stay? Do you want them on the streets?”
of course not. In an ideal world, a kids would have multiple adults other than their parents they could look to for care, but I recognize that that will never be a reality for every single child. So: youth shelters, if they have nowhere else to go. There should be clean, warm shelters where anyone under 18 can stay for as long as they need, no questions asked. (And of course shelters that aren’t just for kids, but we’re talking about youth rights right now)
“But Rue,” I hear you say, “what if some moody teenager runs away after an argument?”
First of all, I’d rather a thousand moody teenagers run away than one abused child be trapped. Second, so what if one does? A kid needs time away from their parents, so they leave. The vast majority of them will get some time to cool down and then go back home, and if they don’t want to go back, period? Then nine times out of ten, they have a good reason. (Because yes, as hard as it is for you to believe, kids are humans who have common sense.)
“Okay, but what about the one time out of ten the kid doesn’t have a good reason?”
Then the kid doesn’t have a good reason. It doesn’t change anything. If someone wants to break up with their partner because of something stupid, you wouldn’t say they legally shouldn’t be able to. (And if you would, then you’re just a bad person.) No one should have to be in a relationship, romantic or otherwise, that they don’t want to be in.