In the latest issue of Quillette, Naomi Schaefer Riley argues for a "one strike and your out" policy for removing children from the custody of abusive parents, while leaving unchallenged the dictatorial control parents otherwise have by default in the present system. Here's my response:
The “stranger danger” focus does more than misdirect attention; it has actually motivated a shift in our society’s attitudes and practices that puts children in more danger than they were in half a century ago. In the name of protection, both government and parents have put more restrictions on the freedoms of children and youth, and increasingly interfered with their ability to develop relationships with adults who aren’t in some position of power over them. The practical effect of this age apartheid is that parents and other authority figures have even more ability to coerce, while young people have fewer friends they can turn to to help them deal with such coercion.
Part of the rationale for these policies is that, as the author claims, children often don’t know what’s best for them. If we’re going to be honest, adults often don’t either, but the evidence actually shows that on these matters, children’s judgment is one of the best predictors.
"Constantine (1981) showed that reaction depends on perception of willingness and whether the minor had absorbed the moral negatives about the sex. If the minor both saw himself or herself as willing and had not absorbed the moral negatives, then he or she would likely respond positively; otherwise, negatively or neutral…. Rather than informed consent [as defined by law on the basis of age], the scientific construct of "simple consent" (whether the minor was willing in the minor's own perception) is the one that has predictive validity with respect to reactions (Rind et al., 2001)." (Rind, Bruce (2010). "Social Response to Age-Gap Sex Involving Minors: Empirical, Historical, Cross-Cultural, and Cross-Species Considerations," Thymos, Vol 4, Issue 2, p. 113)
In light of this evidence that young people's judgment isn't so bad after all, the best way of protecting them from harm should be evident: give them, rather than parents or government bureaucrats, more control over their lives. The way to give this material substance would be to create centers where young people could go of their own volition if they feel unsafe or simply want some space away from their parents' domination. These centers would be overseen by responsible members of the community for everyone's safety, but otherwise minimally regulated. Their openness to the entire community would provide a high level of protection against anyone who might engage in abuse in the privacy of their own home. It would also mean that parents who wanted to work things out with their children could visit and attempt to do so in a neutral space and with others present who could offer both parties input on whether their expectations of each other were reasonable.
.jpg)
Posts
