Epistemology of Child Abuse

The term child abuse has become increasingly sexually loaded when in fact there are also many other forms of child abuse and not solely sexual child abuse, physical child abuse and psychological child abuse but also structural child abuse more generally as involving applied social practices of structural oppression; namely physionomism (oppression as justified by discursive recourse to the body) specifically and DOLP (discrimination, oppression, lies and prejudice) generally.

Legal minors in being systematically subjected to structural oppression have little to no legal recourse as they are in fact legally disenfranchised and legally enslaved by their owners, i.e. so called “parents”.

In re-understanding the diverse and intertwined social practices of child abuse need we therefore deploy an intersectional approach rather than simplistically “observing” each form of child abuse in isolation from yet other forms of child abuse as indeed typically suffered in parallel. Rather than deploying the patriarchal gaze need adults learn to once more make conscious the perspectives of experiences as children in suffering abuse by legal adults and fellow legal minors alike.

Child abuse is typically conceptualized as individual in terms of the behaviors of the child abuser. The perception is always that of the problem merely being dialogically individual rather than structural as involving indeed structural oppression. In fact seems the term “structural oppression” to be peculiarly reserved for adult human victims of oppression whereby the intergenerational abuser-victim situation is virtually always discursively individualized.

The tragic experience of a victim of child abuse is misconceptualized as merely individual rather than as also structural and so the abhorrent behaviors of the child abuser is misconstrued in disguising its structural nature and discursively reducing the individual experience of the victim to a hegemonically patriarchal ageist meta-narrative. While oppression against legal adults is widely recognized as structural rather than merely individual is oppression against legal minors always misconceptualized as an exclusively individualized situation. Legal minors are thus discursively similar to non-human persons in that their victimization is not discursively recognized as structural oppression.

Social services in countries around the world are entirely unconcerned with structural oppression and legal minors who seek new legal guardians due to suffering severe ageist structural oppression at home are tragically systematically rejected by social services.

We need therefore reconceptualize child abuse as both structural and individual/dialogic as unless it is structural, how can it even become identified and conceptualized as child abuse at all? It is the very structural nature of oppression whether economic, social or statist which allows us to identify it as oppression. Indeed, if it is not structural is it rather simply social friction or even random violence.

Ageist parenthood is thus by definition to varying degrees child abuse itself. The extent to which parenthood is structural oppression varies of course greatly from one household to another. Patriarchy (i.e. “structural oppression by relatively older males”) involves undue exercise of power and control by means shibboleths of discrimination/oppression including age, ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality.

Just as patriarchal monogamy is typically socially accepted prostitution; so is the nuclear family thinly veiled structural sexual abuse. Many adults thus procreate out of intense “desire” for children. This of course is thinly veiled, barely sublimated intergenerational sexual desire. Conventional female gender role behaviors are virtually never considered sexual under sex laws and so mothers engage in a lot of physical intimacy with “their” children and fathers can usually do so as well as long as they deploy stereotypical female modes of physical intimacy with “their” children.

Children are thus prostitutes and slaves and their parents’ “joy” is simply barely sublimated sexual jouissance, much like a spouse will derive barely disguised sexual joy from socially interacting with her/his spouse. The problem of course is the non-consensual nature of parent-child relations as ranging from the non-elective to the coercive. Parenthood is thus not only bondage of structural sexual abuse but includes many other forms of structural child abuse as well including undue psychological coercion, physical abuse and structural abuse involving intolerance against sociofludity; namely that children are typically directly or indirectly coerced into stereotypical social roles of age, class, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality and of course as explicitly/implicitly justified by their structurally discriminatory legal status as subpersons.

Just as homoeroticism is not limited to the some invented taxonomic category is intergenerational desire also not limited to some imaginary taxonomic category either. Already Sigmund Freud pointed out the nature of “infantile polymorphous perversion” which is subsequently socially repressed by means of patriarchy and ethnocracy. How can it be then that prospective parents are actually motivated by “desire” for children who have not yet even been conceived? It is really very simple as virtually all adults are ex-pedophiles in that most of them were pedophiles as children in having primarily been sexually attracted towards same-age children. These emotions do not magically disappear in adolescence (socially constructed puberty and post-puberty) but are rather usually barely sublimated into the socially accepted parental “desire” for children.

Another underlying problem with current conceptions of child abuse is simply its lack of standpoint epistemology, meaning that individual narratives of individual children are ideologically filtered by means of patriarchal (ageist-sexist) ethnocratic systemic misinterpretations such as in the literary narratives in the files of social services. Children are in fact prominently abused by ethnocracy as ethnocracy along with patriarchy is the main justification for parental supremacist structural oppression.

We need thus discursively reconceptualize legal minors in them certainly tending to be victims of structural oppression as reduced by structurally oppressive legal adults to legal, social and sexual subpersons and the challenge is thus to undo both patriarchy and ethnocracy as part and parcel of the global feminist social revolution.

Once we understand that child abuse is the norm and not the exception can we also commence empowering persons of all ages from ageist oppression, including technologically redesigning physical environments both indoors and outdoors so as to make these safe for persons of all ages and all genders at all times, implementing feminist SBT (social behavioral training) for all and crucially make respect for and empowerment of personhood one of the central the objectives of law and law-enforcement alike.

Universal emancipation from oppressive shibboleths of discrimination/oppression is not merely an ethical prerogative but crucially an opportunity for social progress. Child abuse by legal adults against legal minors is a form of reprehensible ageism and so ending the ageist mythology is essential indeed. We need all irrespective of chronological age embrace childhood and reject the structurally silly induced self-oppression of ethnocratic/patriarchal “adulthood”.

Rather than unthinkingly extend adulthood to children as simplistically advocated by the United States youth rights movement need we restore and extend childhood to those tragic human persons as abusively socially deformed into patriarchal so called “adults”. We need furthermore reject patriarchal sexuality as the reprehensible ageist-sexist structural oppression that it indeed is. We need restore the domaine of the feminine to its rightful place of glory and splendor for all and thus learn to reappropriate our own respective individual structurally repressed infantile polymorphous perversion. We need abolish monogamy, heteronormativity and cisnormativity as the structurally oppressive social norm in favor of youth villages, panamory (i.e. non-taxonomic interpersonal intimacy) and tremendous diversity in polyamory (i.e. consensual non-monogamy).

The recognition of the socio-bureaucratic patriarchal machine of chronological age as an abhorrent physionomistic shibboleth of discrimination/oppression needs become fully integrated into intersectional discursive practices of consideration as towards an increasingly inclusive, ethico-feminist politics of polymorphism that will deconstruct and supplant patriarchal epistemologies of oppressive and reprehensible ageism indeed.

The Intelligence Entrapment Methods documentation project.