Nowadays, throughout our lives we are raised to exercise a, mostly, one way view of life. This, while it might be conceived as beneficial to some, it is not as good as it might appear to our by-standing eyes. If it’s only forced to conceive things homogeneously, not only are you in denial, but this severely damages the act of rational exercise to point where the initial intention becomes derailed when said values are imposed. It is important to mention this because there are different ways of how you can raise a child, but, despite of that many choose to raise their descendants in the same manner as they were probably raised as well. This can either be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the circumstances; nevertheless, I am focusing more on the aspect that such raising method is the only one available, so even if the child feels strongly against something for a good reason, they are still to be forced to it anyways, along with other roles that are designated to children in this society.
One interesting aspect I often find amusing, and hypocritical, to be practiced is the fact of how subjective child abuse (not only sexual) is convinced in general. (Child Abuse). Take the website I just linked for example. According to the Australian Government’s Fact Sheet on Child Abuse, it is to be considered in four categories: 1)physical abuse, 2)emotional abuse, 3)neglect and 4)sexual abuse.
Now let’s consider how all of these categories vary on what it is depending on the place where you are and the level of general social liberation surrounding said civilization. For example, in my home country, physical abuse is way more common as part of “effectively” raising children; regardless, it is still an act that could be detrimental to a child and, without a doubt, it is also one that is manipulative in an ill way, even if intentions of such ways was to correct them in something… However, this atrocity is somehow seen in good light in the society I am taking as an example, and in many other.
Emotional abuse is also another component which tends to be ignored and told to the kid to suck it up or to shut up and stop whining about it instead. It is also one that is present from every level of authority and it is often dismissed when such fellows makes use of this in order to teach the child something they think it is for them to learn the hard way or else they will not learn or grow weak. But are you not actually making the child adopt to what you conceive as ideal, rather than what by what they personally think about the topics involved?
Neglect is more accurately referenced and often dealt with, but in many times it comes after an extended amount of time that the child involved stays quiet about the circumstances surrounding them. Sometimes it is noticeable by traits exhibited in the child’s body and/or the visible signs they are demonstrating, like how they act and distancing from other people…
With sexual abuse, it becomes different because, unlike in the latter topics, abuse is not imminent and not always present in the act itself, as it is often documented in studies as non-harmful child sex abuse, even if such is still prosecuted in the same manner. However, the issue in this classification is that it introduces the element of misrepresenting different cases by lumping different scenarios into being stuck with the same term, hence not allowing throughout researching towards these particular cases of child abuse and not to mention unnecessarily stigmatizing even more acts.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, force is defined as 1)physical, often violent, strength or power; 2)strong influence and energy, or a person with strong influence and energy; 3)power to make someone do something, or to make something happen, esp. without offering the possibility of choice.
Regardless of the act committed or whether it involves sexual nature or not, force used against children should not be allowed and children should hold a say in regards the activities in which they choose to, or not choose, to engage in. Using violence and/or manipulation in order to make them believe in something being bad or good does not make you a good person and such methods are not to be used as an excuse to replace fact checking and as an objection against flaws in arguments and to whitewash with the relativity of moral standpoints the ways in which a research is to be taken.
One thing I see with correlation with this is also the aspect of treating children as property, which I entirely go against with for the reason that children are also beings that have the right to enjoy their respective liberties and their own nature and also to explore it without restrictions, with the exception of introducing them to imminent harms, which is the role of a responsible caretaker to watch over and guide them, not indoctrinate them to conform specific belief, though that does not stop you from introducing these belief you withhold, just not the aspect of forcing them to choose that if they show to reject such ideal. Another thing people tend to skip is how they confuse the effectiveness of beating a child (Because “Hey, it works, you know! I was beaten but I have grown fine as a functional adult.”), but fail to see the manipulation and harmful aspect introduced when discussing this particular topic regarding the use of force to address children (and heck, anyone in general)… They disregard that beatings plays the role in teaching a determined notion of what is “always” meant to be “right and wrong”, therefore it fails to acknowledge that such concepts are completely relative. This methodology also makes a habit of ignoring the conversational aspect of communication by dismissing children’s input into the way they are treated and how they could also have relevant subjects to present that are part of their identity and could be discussed into more depth in order to have a better understanding.
Because of this, beatings and reprehensions end up to be a one-sided thing in to which the child does not initially conceive whatever it is considered bad and why, but knows that they might get beat up if they do something for an unknown reason and that instills cautiousness, fear and authority over them. In other words, a growing list of, let’s determine them taboos, starts building up but never to be actually explained as why it is so and the core of whether the issue was actually harmful or just disliked by the guardian of the child, which is inflicting on individual rights of the child doing so. This also discourages the child to defend themselves and be able to hold their own opinions on manner since they are taught to emulate what they are told or else they get beaten (again)…
I say, I see why not more conversational raising methods could be introduced when raising a child instead? Allowing them to profess their views on manners sometimes becomes interesting when authorities decides to pay attention to children. Newer members of society tend to not be so indulged in the ways things are on a given environment, so they even pick up details most do not in the first instant, otherwise internalized as the, considered, innocents “Why’s, How’s, Since when’s” that society so gladly likes to respond with “It is so, so that it is.”, instead of encouraging such curious and analytical behaviours that are common in young humans, for it would promote more rational discussions and more objective insights on their parts, rather than also picking up the slack of merely making assumptions and establishing as “truth” things that often change when refuted with newer evidence. I think it is essential to allow children to have their own liberty to exercise self-ownership and freedom to the maximum extent possible because the same would allow for more self-growth, self-criticism, as well as self-dependence with themselves, only giving space to intervention in non-forceful ways (unless unknown dangers are present and the child does not consent to them) to allow children to form their own set of values, as well as let others form their own.