insincerely yours,

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.

-having a job

-not having a job

-applying for jobs

-the job market

Listen not to be crude but that seatbelt yank is tied directly to the clit I don’t know how or why but it is and it feels like falling in love

Other examples of your local hot people you can lust after in your head no harm no foul without causing the heat death of the universe to arrive early:

- nursing home attendant with eyebrow piercing

- guy who comes over halfway through the cashier scanning your groceries to finish bagging them and then hefts them into your cart and leaves before you are done cashing out without a backwards glance

Him, as he’s yanking my seatbelt: are you scared? You look scared.

Me: oh no, i’ve ridden this ride before

Him, devilish smile: Not while I’m driving it.

pt. 1 | pt. 2 | pt. 3 | pt. 4 | pt. 5 | pt. 7

The backlash against calling characters "Mary Sue" is valid — the term is often sexist, racist, and simply unfounded. However. I do think that there's a gem in that dumpster, and that "this character is so perfect it becomes a major flaw in the story" can still be a meaningful criticism.

Argument 6: "Mary Sue" is worth trotting out as a criticism because there's something deeply troubling in the characteristics that tend to be held up as perfect. Personally, I'm all for using "bland," "basic," "boring," etc. to describe skinny white heroes with blue eyes, perfect skin, book smarts, rizz, flawless health, physical strength, past troubles that make them punch walls but never do anything unsexy like cry or wet the bed, and infinite sex appeal.

Like, Alexandria's Genesis is so damn funny because it's such a boiling-down of the dumbfuck qualities we're taught to consider "perfect." Only point it doesn't hit is the way that cleverness tends to get valued over kindness in fiction, because there's no need to be kind if Mary Sue is the only real character and because our society privileges the fuck out of (what it considers) intelligence.

Example of this problem*: Vladimir Tod by Z Brewer. The main character is downright mean to his classmates on several occasions in a way the story doesn't question — because it's clever meanness, and it's funny meanness, and anyway that guy who Vlad turned into the pariah of their entire grade by leaking his secrets probably had it coming.

Counter-example: Diary of a Wimpy Kid by Jeff Kinney. Similar protagonist in a similar story starts out feeling justified doing mean and clever things because he also feels like an outcast... but he's wrong. And he spends the whole first book learning how wrong he is, and trying to learn to be a better person afterward.

Tl;dr: funny how it's the markers of whiteness and related privileges that always get held up as sources of beauty and goodness and awe. And I don't mean "ha-ha" funny.