What do you think?
Rate this book
Childism: Confronting Prejudice Against Children
In this groundbreaking volume on the human rights of children, acclaimed analyst, political theorist, and biographer Elisabeth Young-Bruehl argues that prejudice exists against children as a group and that it is comparable to racism, sexism, and homophobia. This prejudice—“childism”—legitimates and rationalizes a broad continuum of acts that are not “in the best interests of children,” including the often violent extreme of child abuse and neglect. According to Young-Bruehl, reform is possible only if we acknowledge this prejudice in its basic forms and address the motives and cultural forces that drive it, rather than dwell on the various categories of abuse and punishment.
“There will always be individuals and societies that turn on their children," writes Young-Bruehl, “breaking the natural order Aristotle described two and a half millennia ago in his Nichomachean Ethics." In Childism, Young-Bruehl focuses especially on the ways in which Americans have departed from the child-supportive trends of the Great Society and of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Many years in the making, Childism draws upon a wide range of sources, from the literary and philosophical to the legal and psychoanalytic. Woven into this extraordinary volume are case studies that illuminate the profound importance of listening to the victims who have so much to tell us about the visible and invisible ways in which childism is expressed.
“There will always be individuals and societies that turn on their children," writes Young-Bruehl, “breaking the natural order Aristotle described two and a half millennia ago in his Nichomachean Ethics." In Childism, Young-Bruehl focuses especially on the ways in which Americans have departed from the child-supportive trends of the Great Society and of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Many years in the making, Childism draws upon a wide range of sources, from the literary and philosophical to the legal and psychoanalytic. Woven into this extraordinary volume are case studies that illuminate the profound importance of listening to the victims who have so much to tell us about the visible and invisible ways in which childism is expressed.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published January 3, 2012
22 people are currently reading
697 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
November 19, 2024
n the marvelous book Childism, Elisabeth Young-Bruel makes an exceptionally persuasive case that not only does prejudice against children exist but that it is extremely prevalent. She begins by explaining three types of child abusers, using what are basically psychoanalytic characterological classifications–narcissistic, hysterical and obsessional. She then explains the concept of projection–that is, that an abusing adult is projecting something onto the victimized child, whether it is a wish to eliminate the child/competition, a need to punish what the adult finds bad in himself, or a desire born of narcissism. She then presents a case study of Anna, a young woman undergoing psychoanalysis who was the victim of horrific sexual abuse and neglect. Using Anna in part as a template, Young-Bruel goes on to discuss many important ideas about prejudice against children.
I grew up in the late 80s and 90s and so missed a great deal of the important events discussed by the author. I’ve always been aware, for example, of mandatory reporting laws. I had never stopped to wonder how those laws came into existence. As Young-Bruel explains, it was a long process; in the 1960s it occurred to doctors that when very young children were brought into emergency rooms with serious physical injury they ought to consider abuse. Before then, she explains, if doctors were looking at an x-ray of a preverbal child whose arm showed a great deal of damage they would be thinking “bone disease” not “bone disease, or has someone broken this child’s arm multiple times?” This realization was first published in a peer reviewed journal in the late 60s by Dr. Kempe, who had embarked upon a study that aimed to discover just how many young children were being abused. Over the course of his work, Kempe identified several types of abusers and helped bring forward mandatory reporting laws. His work was extremely important. It was also limited: as Young-Bruel points out, it addressed only physical abuse–not neglect, which was added to reporting laws later, or sexual abuse, which was added later still–and it did not offer much in the way of suggestions for helping children or parents. Over the course of the next couple of decades, progress would be made agonizingly slowly–and very often in the manner of one step forward, two steps back.
As the Baby Boomers began raising children, Young-Bruel explained, they were up against the great Culture Wars surrounding Vietnam. This, of course, is when youth activism began to flower in this country: young people protested the war, took over college campuses, staged civil rights sit-ins, and in the case of the Panthers and the Weathermen declared that the time for talking was over and they would now be taking action. Childism posits that it was partially the fear that older adults felt at this youth uprising and partially the response of Republican administrations–Nixon and Reagan– which passed laws, such as social security, that placed a burden on younger generations, that inspired much of this anti-child culture. It wasn’t just social security laws. Although some politicians, especially Walter Mondale, attempted to pass sweeping legislation that would allow for treatment of victims and abusers as well as better funded daycares and opportunities for parents to interact more with their children–basically following the prevention model that had worked for medical issues–it was impossible to get a big bill through Nixon’s Congress. Instead, Nixon and later Reagan announced that any bill that encouraged daycare and government funded parental involvement and support was “anti family.” One remarkable treatise partly quoted in Childism states outright that an attempt by the U.S. government to provide high-quality daycare and parental support is tantamount to the Nazis recruiting in Hitler’s Youth. The implication, in some cases stated baldly, is that any bill that aims to protect children is really the liberal government’s underhanded, sneaky way of taking your children and indoctrinating them against your values. Ironically, the bill that did get passed allowed for the creation of the famous Child Protective Services (CPS) which, with its ability to launch investigations and even remove children forcibly from their parents, is arguably far more government involvement than optional daycare and education. Of course, various other laws and budgets throughout the years have made CPS overburdened, undertrained and basically toothless, but you still won’t find many Republicans arguing against having such a organization–even though some will still target anti-child abuse programs as examples of overspending.
So that, Young-Bruel explains, is how we arrived at our current way of looking at physical abuse. Sexual abuse is a whole different story. As she explains, our understanding of sexual abuse has evolved alongside our larger cultural ability to even say the words. For far too many decades, even psychologists followed Freud’s idea that reported sexual abuse–and of course abuse, like all sex crimes, is almost certainly massively underreported–was merely imagination, or some Oedipal complex coming to play. It took the general public years to believe that women weren’t just making this up wholesale. Then, in the 1980s, a mass hysteria spread, and suddenly everyone was calling the police to report that their child’s preschool was the site of a Satanic cult, that the children were being abused and raped in all sorts of horrible ways, made to drink blood and slaughter animals, often in tunnels under preschools. In one of the more famous cases, an unlicensed psychologist was brought in and essentially suggested to the children how they ought to answer her questions; all charges were eventually dropped, after a multi-year trial. The concept of repressed memory therapy (now almost entirely debunked) caught on, and women everywhere went to see therapists who, either intentionally or not, basically planted memories of abuse that had not actually happened. Today, most Americans no longer believe that Satanic cults involving ritual sexual abuse swept the nation, but it was a compelling narrative.
Young-Breul explains that this rash of mass hysteria came about in part because it allowed people to bend reality to suit their own purposes. As the 80s drew to a close and the last decade of the century dawned, researchers began looking at other traits which might prove important in the discovery and treatment of abused children. One of the ways in which clinicians directed their focus was Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD, which had been known previously as gulf war syndrome, gained popular attention in the years after the Vietnam War, when many soldiers–my father among them–returned from Asia bearing lasting psychological scars. Research began to show that trauma need not be a one-time event, e.g. a war, bombing, or rape, but can be the ongoing stress of living in an abusive household. Therefore, clinicians suggested, abused children all suffer from PTSD. As it happens, not all abused children meet the clinical criteria for the disorder, but it nonetheless provides a useful framework for thinking about the lasting effects of abuse; if we look at abuse as something that causes long-term damage as the result of trauma it may open up new avenues for treatment.
Despite all of this focus on children who been hit, starved, raped, molested, malnourished, neglected, shamed, belittled, beaten or ignored, Young-Breul’s book is not an examination of the many facets of child abuse. Indeed, part of her thesis is the important idea that we look at helping and protecting children from far too narrow a lens. We are focused solely on protecting children from abuse, whatever that word may mean in the current cultural context (for example, the book related the story of two boys paddled so severely in school that they required emergency medical care; the Supreme Court decided that they were not guaranteed protection). This is far too narrow a definition. For one thing, what we think counts as abuse serious enough to warrant intervention may well be beyond an acceptable moral threshold. But more importantly, it ignores a variety of other, equally important tasks. We should be protecting children. We should also, though, be providing their parents with education, with tools. And we should stop tacitly accepting the idea that children are a nuisance to be controlled, or something that, like a misguided view of a wild horse, must be broken. Children are not here to be neither seen nor heard.
Young-Breul’s most persuasive account of doing things differently comes from Sweden, where researchers listened to children and eventually were able to put forth a bill–which then passed into law–that made corporal punishment, including the spankings that Americans remain so disgustingly fond of, illegal. But Sweden did not just say “ok, no more hitting your children!” Instead, extensive, government funded programs were put into place, free for families. These programs educate parents and even offer free therapy for those who struggle not to hit their children. This is in addition to all of the other family friendly features enjoyed by many other countries, such as extensive parental leave, universal health care, and free high quality daycare. These things are not, theoretically, out of reach for Americans either.
What child advocates have come up against, time and time again, is that particular strain of individualism in American culture. Much of the progress put force by advocates has been stymied by those who claim that regulations and laws impose upon parental rights. This is the same strain of individualism that proclaims that we don’t need affirmative action, or Medicare, or Head Start, because in America if you just work hard enough you can always succeed. This is, of course, patently false; a great bedtime story but utterly without merit. There are people powerless enough that no matter how hard they work they will never rise; the system has been created to oppress them. Unfortunately, many children belong to that group. America has a long tradition of ignoring the voices of oppressed people, privileging the powerful, and then claiming that the oppressed group is to blame. As Young-Breul points out, this can be seen clearly enough in the language that we use: in much the same way that we talk about rape as a “women’s issue” we talk about child abuse as an issue with the child. In fact, of course, the issue and problem lies with the abuser. And as the book discusses, surprisingly little research has been done on what motivates abusers of all stripes. Further, the voices of children themselves are absent the conversation. No one is suggesting that we allow eight-year-olds to drink and vote, but a movement must always include the voices of those who need that movement.
In this annotation, I have managed to scrape the surface of this masterful work. A full reading is necessary for any educator, however, who seeks to understand the myriad of ways in which children are disenfranchised and tremendously damaged by the rampant strains of childism that run through American society. Our national commitment to children’s rights must begin soon. We might start by signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child; we and Somalia are the only countries that have not signed.
As educators, our tasks are many. We must teach writing, reading, math, science, history, social studies. We must also teach manners, good behavior, test-taking, critical thinking, friendship, kindness and creativity. And we must be willing to confront what prejudice expert Elisabeth Young-Breul has named Childism, the prejudice against children.
We must be brave advocates for the children in our care, and by extension children everywhere. We must be willing to say that children have certain inalienable rights, and that among these are developmentally appropriate care, secure attachments, freedom from violence, and to exist in a world where they are seen, heard and believed. And we must work to make it so. That is our job.
I grew up in the late 80s and 90s and so missed a great deal of the important events discussed by the author. I’ve always been aware, for example, of mandatory reporting laws. I had never stopped to wonder how those laws came into existence. As Young-Bruel explains, it was a long process; in the 1960s it occurred to doctors that when very young children were brought into emergency rooms with serious physical injury they ought to consider abuse. Before then, she explains, if doctors were looking at an x-ray of a preverbal child whose arm showed a great deal of damage they would be thinking “bone disease” not “bone disease, or has someone broken this child’s arm multiple times?” This realization was first published in a peer reviewed journal in the late 60s by Dr. Kempe, who had embarked upon a study that aimed to discover just how many young children were being abused. Over the course of his work, Kempe identified several types of abusers and helped bring forward mandatory reporting laws. His work was extremely important. It was also limited: as Young-Bruel points out, it addressed only physical abuse–not neglect, which was added to reporting laws later, or sexual abuse, which was added later still–and it did not offer much in the way of suggestions for helping children or parents. Over the course of the next couple of decades, progress would be made agonizingly slowly–and very often in the manner of one step forward, two steps back.
As the Baby Boomers began raising children, Young-Bruel explained, they were up against the great Culture Wars surrounding Vietnam. This, of course, is when youth activism began to flower in this country: young people protested the war, took over college campuses, staged civil rights sit-ins, and in the case of the Panthers and the Weathermen declared that the time for talking was over and they would now be taking action. Childism posits that it was partially the fear that older adults felt at this youth uprising and partially the response of Republican administrations–Nixon and Reagan– which passed laws, such as social security, that placed a burden on younger generations, that inspired much of this anti-child culture. It wasn’t just social security laws. Although some politicians, especially Walter Mondale, attempted to pass sweeping legislation that would allow for treatment of victims and abusers as well as better funded daycares and opportunities for parents to interact more with their children–basically following the prevention model that had worked for medical issues–it was impossible to get a big bill through Nixon’s Congress. Instead, Nixon and later Reagan announced that any bill that encouraged daycare and government funded parental involvement and support was “anti family.” One remarkable treatise partly quoted in Childism states outright that an attempt by the U.S. government to provide high-quality daycare and parental support is tantamount to the Nazis recruiting in Hitler’s Youth. The implication, in some cases stated baldly, is that any bill that aims to protect children is really the liberal government’s underhanded, sneaky way of taking your children and indoctrinating them against your values. Ironically, the bill that did get passed allowed for the creation of the famous Child Protective Services (CPS) which, with its ability to launch investigations and even remove children forcibly from their parents, is arguably far more government involvement than optional daycare and education. Of course, various other laws and budgets throughout the years have made CPS overburdened, undertrained and basically toothless, but you still won’t find many Republicans arguing against having such a organization–even though some will still target anti-child abuse programs as examples of overspending.
So that, Young-Bruel explains, is how we arrived at our current way of looking at physical abuse. Sexual abuse is a whole different story. As she explains, our understanding of sexual abuse has evolved alongside our larger cultural ability to even say the words. For far too many decades, even psychologists followed Freud’s idea that reported sexual abuse–and of course abuse, like all sex crimes, is almost certainly massively underreported–was merely imagination, or some Oedipal complex coming to play. It took the general public years to believe that women weren’t just making this up wholesale. Then, in the 1980s, a mass hysteria spread, and suddenly everyone was calling the police to report that their child’s preschool was the site of a Satanic cult, that the children were being abused and raped in all sorts of horrible ways, made to drink blood and slaughter animals, often in tunnels under preschools. In one of the more famous cases, an unlicensed psychologist was brought in and essentially suggested to the children how they ought to answer her questions; all charges were eventually dropped, after a multi-year trial. The concept of repressed memory therapy (now almost entirely debunked) caught on, and women everywhere went to see therapists who, either intentionally or not, basically planted memories of abuse that had not actually happened. Today, most Americans no longer believe that Satanic cults involving ritual sexual abuse swept the nation, but it was a compelling narrative.
Young-Breul explains that this rash of mass hysteria came about in part because it allowed people to bend reality to suit their own purposes. As the 80s drew to a close and the last decade of the century dawned, researchers began looking at other traits which might prove important in the discovery and treatment of abused children. One of the ways in which clinicians directed their focus was Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD, which had been known previously as gulf war syndrome, gained popular attention in the years after the Vietnam War, when many soldiers–my father among them–returned from Asia bearing lasting psychological scars. Research began to show that trauma need not be a one-time event, e.g. a war, bombing, or rape, but can be the ongoing stress of living in an abusive household. Therefore, clinicians suggested, abused children all suffer from PTSD. As it happens, not all abused children meet the clinical criteria for the disorder, but it nonetheless provides a useful framework for thinking about the lasting effects of abuse; if we look at abuse as something that causes long-term damage as the result of trauma it may open up new avenues for treatment.
Despite all of this focus on children who been hit, starved, raped, molested, malnourished, neglected, shamed, belittled, beaten or ignored, Young-Breul’s book is not an examination of the many facets of child abuse. Indeed, part of her thesis is the important idea that we look at helping and protecting children from far too narrow a lens. We are focused solely on protecting children from abuse, whatever that word may mean in the current cultural context (for example, the book related the story of two boys paddled so severely in school that they required emergency medical care; the Supreme Court decided that they were not guaranteed protection). This is far too narrow a definition. For one thing, what we think counts as abuse serious enough to warrant intervention may well be beyond an acceptable moral threshold. But more importantly, it ignores a variety of other, equally important tasks. We should be protecting children. We should also, though, be providing their parents with education, with tools. And we should stop tacitly accepting the idea that children are a nuisance to be controlled, or something that, like a misguided view of a wild horse, must be broken. Children are not here to be neither seen nor heard.
Young-Breul’s most persuasive account of doing things differently comes from Sweden, where researchers listened to children and eventually were able to put forth a bill–which then passed into law–that made corporal punishment, including the spankings that Americans remain so disgustingly fond of, illegal. But Sweden did not just say “ok, no more hitting your children!” Instead, extensive, government funded programs were put into place, free for families. These programs educate parents and even offer free therapy for those who struggle not to hit their children. This is in addition to all of the other family friendly features enjoyed by many other countries, such as extensive parental leave, universal health care, and free high quality daycare. These things are not, theoretically, out of reach for Americans either.
What child advocates have come up against, time and time again, is that particular strain of individualism in American culture. Much of the progress put force by advocates has been stymied by those who claim that regulations and laws impose upon parental rights. This is the same strain of individualism that proclaims that we don’t need affirmative action, or Medicare, or Head Start, because in America if you just work hard enough you can always succeed. This is, of course, patently false; a great bedtime story but utterly without merit. There are people powerless enough that no matter how hard they work they will never rise; the system has been created to oppress them. Unfortunately, many children belong to that group. America has a long tradition of ignoring the voices of oppressed people, privileging the powerful, and then claiming that the oppressed group is to blame. As Young-Breul points out, this can be seen clearly enough in the language that we use: in much the same way that we talk about rape as a “women’s issue” we talk about child abuse as an issue with the child. In fact, of course, the issue and problem lies with the abuser. And as the book discusses, surprisingly little research has been done on what motivates abusers of all stripes. Further, the voices of children themselves are absent the conversation. No one is suggesting that we allow eight-year-olds to drink and vote, but a movement must always include the voices of those who need that movement.
In this annotation, I have managed to scrape the surface of this masterful work. A full reading is necessary for any educator, however, who seeks to understand the myriad of ways in which children are disenfranchised and tremendously damaged by the rampant strains of childism that run through American society. Our national commitment to children’s rights must begin soon. We might start by signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child; we and Somalia are the only countries that have not signed.
As educators, our tasks are many. We must teach writing, reading, math, science, history, social studies. We must also teach manners, good behavior, test-taking, critical thinking, friendship, kindness and creativity. And we must be willing to confront what prejudice expert Elisabeth Young-Breul has named Childism, the prejudice against children.
We must be brave advocates for the children in our care, and by extension children everywhere. We must be willing to say that children have certain inalienable rights, and that among these are developmentally appropriate care, secure attachments, freedom from violence, and to exist in a world where they are seen, heard and believed. And we must work to make it so. That is our job.
April 5, 2012
I thought this book was about childism, a prejudice much like racism, targeted at children, and all the ways this prejudice manifests in our culture. This book actually had very little to do with that. It's almost entirely about sexual abuse of children, particularly girls, from a very narrow feminist, liberal, Freudian perspective. It bounces back and forth from political history of child abuse to case studies from the author's psychoanalytic practice. Wasn't Freud almost completely debunked by modern psychology?
Like feminism, this author claims that violence is caused by belief structures in our society, specifically that child abusers believe that it's okay to rape children because kids are their possessions, their own personal sexual playthings. The only evidence given for this is a few anecdotes. And, like feminism, rather than exploring this hypothesis by studying the abusers themselves, to see if they really do have these beliefs, this book argues the way to understand abuse is to listen to the abused. While I'm sure that's quite therapeutic, and necessarily part of the overall picture, if that's all you get, all you will have is a perspective clouded by trauma, anger, and pain. Which is pretty much what feminism has degenerated into in the last few decades.
The devil in this book are those mean old conservatives, who are always thwarting activists concerned about children's welfare, by focusing on "family values." I'm a liberal myself, but I found this political polarization annoying. I know most conservatives care deeply about children, and certainly don't want them to be abused. But they do have different values and strategies. It's important to them to keep government interference to a minimum, and to emphasize families as a unit, rather than focusing on kids. Even if you disagree with this, it's certainly a valid perspective that could easily be treated in a balanced discussion. Of course, the outmoded "spare the rod, spoil the child" conservative philosophy would have to be debunked.
So this book would alienate both non-feminists and conservatives, which is very sad, because it's not only liberals and feminists who raise kids. Everyone needs to hear the message of children's rights. Of course, this book doesn't really touch on that very much anyway, which makes me even sadder, because it's a long overdue subject in our supposedly more enlightened (or at least trying to be) era of equality. Such a book must be written, and when it is, it will be pivotal, but this book is not it.
I'd write it myself if I were qualified, but I can envision how such a book might begin: "How would you describe a social paradigm in which one group of people, distinguished only by the color of their skin, is routinely ignored and not taken seriously, and systematically and legally forced to attend oppressive institutions that require them to labor against their will, beaten and verbally assaulted by people they are forced by law to live with, denied political representation and equal opportunities to work to better themselves? Racism, maybe even slavery? Then what word would you use if the group isn't distiguished by the color of their skin, but instead by their youth? Childism, youthism, maybe even slavery."
Like feminism, this author claims that violence is caused by belief structures in our society, specifically that child abusers believe that it's okay to rape children because kids are their possessions, their own personal sexual playthings. The only evidence given for this is a few anecdotes. And, like feminism, rather than exploring this hypothesis by studying the abusers themselves, to see if they really do have these beliefs, this book argues the way to understand abuse is to listen to the abused. While I'm sure that's quite therapeutic, and necessarily part of the overall picture, if that's all you get, all you will have is a perspective clouded by trauma, anger, and pain. Which is pretty much what feminism has degenerated into in the last few decades.
The devil in this book are those mean old conservatives, who are always thwarting activists concerned about children's welfare, by focusing on "family values." I'm a liberal myself, but I found this political polarization annoying. I know most conservatives care deeply about children, and certainly don't want them to be abused. But they do have different values and strategies. It's important to them to keep government interference to a minimum, and to emphasize families as a unit, rather than focusing on kids. Even if you disagree with this, it's certainly a valid perspective that could easily be treated in a balanced discussion. Of course, the outmoded "spare the rod, spoil the child" conservative philosophy would have to be debunked.
So this book would alienate both non-feminists and conservatives, which is very sad, because it's not only liberals and feminists who raise kids. Everyone needs to hear the message of children's rights. Of course, this book doesn't really touch on that very much anyway, which makes me even sadder, because it's a long overdue subject in our supposedly more enlightened (or at least trying to be) era of equality. Such a book must be written, and when it is, it will be pivotal, but this book is not it.
I'd write it myself if I were qualified, but I can envision how such a book might begin: "How would you describe a social paradigm in which one group of people, distinguished only by the color of their skin, is routinely ignored and not taken seriously, and systematically and legally forced to attend oppressive institutions that require them to labor against their will, beaten and verbally assaulted by people they are forced by law to live with, denied political representation and equal opportunities to work to better themselves? Racism, maybe even slavery? Then what word would you use if the group isn't distiguished by the color of their skin, but instead by their youth? Childism, youthism, maybe even slavery."
March 18, 2012
According to the book jacket, this book discusses the causes of "childism" which the author defines as prejudice against children in the US (name derived from other "isms" like racism, sexism, etc) and how to remedy it. Based on this description, I expected (hoped?) to read a thought-provoking analyses of ways that many Americans give benefits to some groups, while "discriminating" against kids (e.g., medicare for elderly is good; medicaid for poor kids is bad. money spent on prisons is good; money spent on public education is bad, etc). Or at minimum, discussion of why it's "OK" that kids can work, drive, sign a contract and get married at 18 years old but not (legally) drink until age 21.
Silly me. The book reads like a doctoral dissertation (complete with puffy, bloated prose) on how parental distortion (by guilt, shame or delusion) of the Freudian archetypes (obsessional, hysterical and narcissistic) results in child abuse. The author even includes case studies from several of her patients (she's a therapist) to support her theory. And after wading through this book, as far as I can tell, her only "remedy" to this problem is years of analyses with a therapist. (Note: I'm NOT saying that child abuse is not a terrible thing, and we shouldn't do everything we can to stop it, because we should. I'm saying that I don't think what is written here supports the idea that child abuse is an example of "discrimination" against children).
Silly me. The book reads like a doctoral dissertation (complete with puffy, bloated prose) on how parental distortion (by guilt, shame or delusion) of the Freudian archetypes (obsessional, hysterical and narcissistic) results in child abuse. The author even includes case studies from several of her patients (she's a therapist) to support her theory. And after wading through this book, as far as I can tell, her only "remedy" to this problem is years of analyses with a therapist. (Note: I'm NOT saying that child abuse is not a terrible thing, and we shouldn't do everything we can to stop it, because we should. I'm saying that I don't think what is written here supports the idea that child abuse is an example of "discrimination" against children).
January 13, 2012
I am so glad Ms. Young-Bruehl wrote this book and relieved me from the responsibility of writing on this subject! I agree with most of what she says and I hope that her words will be an eye-opener in convincing people that advocacy can only be effective once we recognize that children do indeed have rights and voices to be heard.
August 18, 2012
Challenging book. Not for the content, but for the perspective. It left me questioning myself as an adult and as a parent. That's a good thing! I'm committed to being the best me that I can be in my lifetime. I recommend this book to anyone who has or works with children.
November 15, 2021
Everything begins in childhood and society is the result. This read unpacked more than I could have imagined just from reading the back cover. The incredible review of extensive research framed in historical context reveals the Truths of how the US has colluded to control it's citizens for the benefit of the few elite's.
The collision goes back centuries, passed down Intergenerationally and results in the Intergenerational transfer of wealth thereby no motivation for the next generation to step out of the collision.
This collision is rooted in the insatiable love of money (greed is a $$$$ addiction). The transfer mechanism they chose was children.
Furthermore, as Childism is unpacked so are Racism, Sexism and other prejudices. Everything does begin in Childhood and Society is the result. Generation after generation of raising children in a CHILDIST society is the transmission of all prejudices, Racism and Sexism, etc.
The entire US educational system is the mechanism that structures the enforcement of Childism and reinforces all prejudices. The US educational system was strategically designed to produce worker bees for the companies of the wealthy. These are the documented facts. This explains the resistances to change.
To change society we must change how children are cared for and educated. Society must examine all systems for CHILDIST beliefs and actions whole simultaneously changing the systems in which children interact for developing human beings. Child development must become a core frame work for all systems.
The collision goes back centuries, passed down Intergenerationally and results in the Intergenerational transfer of wealth thereby no motivation for the next generation to step out of the collision.
This collision is rooted in the insatiable love of money (greed is a $$$$ addiction). The transfer mechanism they chose was children.
Furthermore, as Childism is unpacked so are Racism, Sexism and other prejudices. Everything does begin in Childhood and Society is the result. Generation after generation of raising children in a CHILDIST society is the transmission of all prejudices, Racism and Sexism, etc.
The entire US educational system is the mechanism that structures the enforcement of Childism and reinforces all prejudices. The US educational system was strategically designed to produce worker bees for the companies of the wealthy. These are the documented facts. This explains the resistances to change.
To change society we must change how children are cared for and educated. Society must examine all systems for CHILDIST beliefs and actions whole simultaneously changing the systems in which children interact for developing human beings. Child development must become a core frame work for all systems.
May 2, 2023
Was a but disappointed in this book. It wasn’t bad, per se, but it felt more like a mash up of the history of the study of child abuse and case studies, than a book on the prevailing prejudice against children. I am interested in how the general population of America is prejudiced against children, how those views are held casually and effect all children’s treatment at school and at home. This book sort of made childism only an issue for those experiencing extreme abuse, and pathologized the abusers which I think undermines the idea of childism itself.
The idea the children experience discrimination on the basis of being children is still a new and radical thought, so I still applaud the writer.
The idea the children experience discrimination on the basis of being children is still a new and radical thought, so I still applaud the writer.
November 26, 2012
Between the author's dry academic style and her Freudianism, I chose not to finish this book. A one chapter summary of the her main points and arguments would have been more valuable in evaluating what she has to share.
September 18, 2023
4.5 but rounding down. Highly recommend to everyone, whether or not you ever plan on even interacting with a child, let alone having one.
Honestly from an academic pov this book probably is more of a four but I am giving a good amount of credit to the fact that I think this is just an extremely valuable subject to read about that does not get enough attention.
I did find this unique in terms of academic social science non fic because there is little repeating of the same info as you often see with this genre. Each chapter approaches the history, theory, or phycology of the issue with new info and explanations for the reader.
The most disappointing aspect to me was simply that this book lacks few solutions beyond accepting the concept of childism and the creation of a "child history month." And I mean the author doesn't promise solutions at any point but it felt like there should be a little bit more than what there is.
I will say though she fully convinced me on childism. I was admittedly a little skeptical at the beginning but by the end I was sold and I am surprised we don't hear this talked about more in a society obsessed with "isms."
Honestly from an academic pov this book probably is more of a four but I am giving a good amount of credit to the fact that I think this is just an extremely valuable subject to read about that does not get enough attention.
I did find this unique in terms of academic social science non fic because there is little repeating of the same info as you often see with this genre. Each chapter approaches the history, theory, or phycology of the issue with new info and explanations for the reader.
The most disappointing aspect to me was simply that this book lacks few solutions beyond accepting the concept of childism and the creation of a "child history month." And I mean the author doesn't promise solutions at any point but it felt like there should be a little bit more than what there is.
I will say though she fully convinced me on childism. I was admittedly a little skeptical at the beginning but by the end I was sold and I am surprised we don't hear this talked about more in a society obsessed with "isms."
September 17, 2023
I am disappointed in this book. I was really expecting more examples of “ism” rather than outright abuse, sexual or otherwise. We don’t need a new word for child abuse, or sexual assault of a child. I was hoping that it would dive into what makes people do what they do. The book several times said that other studies did not get into the “why” but this book didn’t really get into it either. I don’t think we need an “ism” I guess. We should be more aware of abuse, and how to help the parents and children. The book was pointing political fingers for people long out of office. The politics just seemed an excuse to bash a “side” they didn’t agree with rather than provide anything constructive.
February 26, 2022
2.5
yazarın çocuk alanındaki bütçe kesintileri, hatalı politikalar ile psikiyatrik tanılar diyebileceğimiz narsist, histerik "çocuk düşmanlığı" gibi oldukça bireysel konular arasındaki kurmaya çalıştığı ilişki kesinlikle kafama yatmadı. ortaya attığı kavramı doğrulamak için gösterdiği çaba zaman zaman sıkıcı bi hal alabiliyor.
özellikle abd toplumuna odaklanmış. daha da özelde ise kendi gördüğü birkaç danışanının öyküleri üzerinden çok geniş çıkarımlar yapmaya çalışılmış. genel itibariyle çocuklarla ilgili politikalar ve kültürel tutum üzerine bahsettikleri ile kitle histerisi üzerine anlatılanlar ilgimi çekti o kadar.
yazarın çocuk alanındaki bütçe kesintileri, hatalı politikalar ile psikiyatrik tanılar diyebileceğimiz narsist, histerik "çocuk düşmanlığı" gibi oldukça bireysel konular arasındaki kurmaya çalıştığı ilişki kesinlikle kafama yatmadı. ortaya attığı kavramı doğrulamak için gösterdiği çaba zaman zaman sıkıcı bi hal alabiliyor.
özellikle abd toplumuna odaklanmış. daha da özelde ise kendi gördüğü birkaç danışanının öyküleri üzerinden çok geniş çıkarımlar yapmaya çalışılmış. genel itibariyle çocuklarla ilgili politikalar ve kültürel tutum üzerine bahsettikleri ile kitle histerisi üzerine anlatılanlar ilgimi çekti o kadar.
December 24, 2023
A real slog
January 11, 2025
The first section of the book (which explains the idea of “childism” and the stakes of addressing it) is excellent and a worthy contribution to both scholarly and political discussion. In contrast, the case studies focus on individual, rather than institutional, problems.
December 12, 2025
Quite good but it relies a bit too much on Freudian psychoanalysis for my liking.
February 12, 2015
Recommended by Jack Zipes (retired Professor of German from the University of MN, he does a lot of work around critical literacy). He references it in his talk about The Magicians Apprentice (a warning tale for children - by its use of language and power) and discussing two tale types; the rebellious apprentice and the humiliated apprentice. It helps to illustrate the struggle between the master and the pupil (parent & child, teacher & student). In Fantasia, Mickey Mouse is the humiliated apprentice. In Harry Potter, Harry is the rebellious apprentice. The motivation of the Magician, the Master, the Parent can be contradictory; do we nourish, guide, protect the apprentice, the student, the child, or do we seek to regulate and discipline according to an arbitrary set of rules? Victim and victimizer, both.
Ultimately for me, the greatest take away is, "Discipline means teaching, not punishment."
Ultimately for me, the greatest take away is, "Discipline means teaching, not punishment."
February 14, 2024
I was pretty excited about this thrift store find, but I ended up abandoning it. It started off all right, but kept veering heavily into theory and all sorts of stuff that just didn't have to do with children but rather prejudice in general. Okay, fine, as an introduction. So I read a bit but then skipped ahead to the next chapter. And it's written in narrative form but is an example of a real life patient/client (not sure of the right terminology . . . ) of the author's. And it reads like poorly written fiction.
I have high irritability unfortunately, and if something bugs me, it's rarely worth it to push through that. So this one is going right back to the thrift store.
I have high irritability unfortunately, and if something bugs me, it's rarely worth it to push through that. So this one is going right back to the thrift store.
March 31, 2023
Reading an extended exploration of the concept of childism was definitely perspective altering and useful. I'm persuaded by the author's overall argument that childism is quite real, and that the "3 P's" of children's rights (Provision, Protection, and Participation) are a good solution.
However, the book was filled with a far too much unsupported theoretical speculation and outdated freudianism. Also, the chapter on Anna's abuse story needs a massive TW, and frankly the level of graphic detail felt completely excessive.
However, the book was filled with a far too much unsupported theoretical speculation and outdated freudianism. Also, the chapter on Anna's abuse story needs a massive TW, and frankly the level of graphic detail felt completely excessive.
Read
April 11, 2012This last book by psychoanalyst and biographer Elisabeth Young-Bruehl is a truly provocative idea that the prejudice we don't attend to is the one we harbour towards the young. Young-Bruehl makes a powerful argument that for the most part most of us act truly contrary to the best interests of the child. The argument seems to pay to little attention to the social forces and too much attention to individual motivations but over-all it is an argument we need to wrestle with.
February 3, 2012
Gave up on this. The author's style and attempt at setting up examples of what childism is just didn't sit well with me. I had a problem with many of her arguments early on and gave up.
June 28, 2012
I should really enjoy this book and advocate for others to read it,
BUT
I can't. She never really creates a convincing case for me. It is far too Freudian for me.
BUT
I can't. She never really creates a convincing case for me. It is far too Freudian for me.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews