But in the UK there is growing intrusion into family life by the state. Pressure groups such as the NSPCC are the driving force between new laws such as making Emotional Abuse in the home illegal, and the so-called Scottish government introducing a State appointed Guardian for every child in Scotland (Named Person law).
The thing is, I do believe the very insular and isolated nuclear family unit does need to be accountable to the greater community. As a youth liberationist, I do not take sides in the "state vs. the parents" battle, because in the youth lib ideology neither should treat kids as property.
Emotional abuse is a severe and largely overlooked problem, and is the result of numerous kids running away, committing suicide, and other negative ways of acting out, as previously noted in this thread. It's not tolerated between spouses, yet very tolerated when kids are subjected to it by parents. Though don't get me wrong, I'm concerned about these State Appointed Guardians, as I worry they will simply become a third parent of sorts, rather than a true objective voice for children to air their legitimate grievances with.
In the UK it is not all about (anti's promoting) stranger-danger, but about campaign groups pathologising home-life and lobbying government for more and more new laws and intrusions. Replete with scare-stories about how the home is a hidden hotbed of child abuse. The NSPCC and alarmist allies are behind the ever expanding definition of child abuse and amorphous terms like, inappropriate.
Well, does the U.K. have a severe problem with underagers running away, committing suicide, and acting out in negative ways? The thing is, because of the disproportionate degree of power allotted to parents, and the "closed" nature of the nuclear family household, the greatest amount of abuse of all sorts occurs to kids in this type of environment. I don't think this is a mere scare tactic, because real evidence has been found. Children need a voice and a committee to hear their grievances, so if they are unhappy and subject to emotional abuse, then they can leave the home in question. That's what youth lib is all about. It doesn't mean that parents should be arrested for every little argument or mistake, but they do need to add respect to their love and concern for their kids. The nuclear family unit is notorious for being dysfunctional due to its strong power imbalances and secluded nature.
I see this measure you describe in the U.K. as a backlash against incidents of emotional abuse, which has gone too far. I don't consider this State Appointed Guardian business the ideal solution, because I'm not sure it will afford children any real choices of their own.
Frank Furedi wrote an excellent article last year saying that the NSPCC are just the same as PIE, because they all try to undermine parental guardianship for their own slanted 'emancipation' agenda.
Um, Alice, are you aware from reading my posts that I'm a youth liberationist, not a parental power advocate? Many others here are also, which I would imagine you should have gleaned from reading the recent posts. There were many youth libbers here during your previous tenure on the board years ago too, including me, if you recall. It's fine that you think differently, but you seem to have the impression that I'm in agreement with you on the matter of parental guardianship. I respect the institution of parenthood, but I am very much against the concept of parental power, i.e., children being considered the de facto property of their parents.
Tom O'Carroll commented on the article. And I totally took issue with his assertion that Lewis Carroll and Michael Jackson were paedophiles (child abusers).
Tom O'Carroll actually said no such thing. He never referred to Carroll and Jackson as child abusers, but clearly distinguished pedophilia and hebephilia from child molesters/abusers. He believes there is good evidence they were Minor Attracted People (MAPs) and I fully agree. He provided much good evidence in that article on Carroll, and his book on Michael Jackson (Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons) provided thoroughly exhaustive evidence. But never did he consider either of them "abusers." In all honesty, Alice, that is your word based on personal interpretation, not his word.
Gangrene prevents girllove becoming all it can be in the wider society. there is no chance of a renaissance of a Carrollian kind of girllove unless parents can once again trust outsiders to see they won't harm their kids.
Speaking for myself, Alice, I have never been seeking a Carrollian kind of GL regarding young adolescent girls, but a full, unabashed emancipation agenda where they have control over their own lives, the right to vote, a mutually respectful relationship with their parents, and the right to choose full romantic relationships. I wish the same thing for children, who I believe have much more potential than they are currently allowed to achieve or express. I seek to earn the trust of all society that MAPs are decent people, but the trust of parents, as important as that would be to me, would always be secondary in importance to the trust of their kids.
At risk of contradicting myself about state intrusion.. An excellent health and wellbeing argument is waiting to be made for lonely 'childlovers' to be safely re-socialised with children, supervised contact through education and leisure say, play and games, but there is no chance at the moment of the debate moving towards that therapeutic vision unless those who profess girllove or boylove get their act together. I have a vision of society integrating and finding positive healthy outlets for these people, perhaps under the auspices of the mainstream healthcare and social work system. That means that the discourse and state will have to evolve for this to happen. Many hidden-girllove souls are already making a positive contribution to society within point of contact professions such as teachers and doctors. Yet this is unbeknownst to wider society.. as society only has this warped misinformed concept that any interest in children is criminal. They only hear about child sexual abuse. They have no other reference point outside that. Having an enlightened vision is better than (often unfounded) fear, and witchhunts.
Which is why the youth emancipation agenda seeks to de-criminalize mutually consensual and empirically positive romantic relationships between adults and youths who may have an interest in forming such relationships with each other, as well as granting underagers full suffrage, labor rights, and recognition as full citizens and human beings who are respected based on their individual merits, and are the property of no adults, either genetic adult relatives or the state. I share your concern about witch hunts, but we don't seem to share an agenda at all. That's fine, but I just want to be straight with you about this.
Dissident thanks for your positive contribution.. Excuse my agent provocateur stance! It's good to share and learn. :)
You're welcome! I just wanted to clarify where I stand on this issue, which is shared by several others on this board. I wouldn't deny any MAP who wanted a Carrollian type of relationship with youths in their preferred age group, of course; I would simply be against such "innocent" and platonic relationships be imposed on everyone of any age via state force.