I think there are a lot of people making this argument genuinely who aren't thinking about the consent-oriented implications. But I agree, it should be treated harshly.
You don't ever seriously wrestle with the ideas of anarchism in this piece, especially not mass anarchist ones. Likely because you have not read any anarchist theory (yes there is anarchist theory even if you refuse to acknowledge it). Rather, it seems like you are taking the ideas of some self proclaimed anarchists on twitter as representative of the whole movement. As if MLs aren't also insufferable on twitter/social media...
I have a bit of experience of both anarchism and children's liberation movements. Yes there have been very problematic anarchists (Wolfi Landstreicher did a pro-pedo bit once) and very problematic childrens "liberators" (BtB did a podcast on the Odenwald schule) and the way I see it the problem isn't inherent to both. Anarchist theory often attracts people that are hyper-individualistic douchebags who will argue that any boundary or constraint is a affront to the indivdual. Being more of an AnPrim myself, I was more into the antropological side of things and researching how hunter-gatherer societies deal with child rearing. My interest in it that I have kids myself and I hated school and the way society treats children in general because it is coercive in ways that isn't neccesary or helpful (nobody says you should let a kid walk into traffic). The evolution of Childhood by Melvin Konner is a good book, just as "Free to Learn" by Peter Gray although the latter is more biased as he is personally involved with the Sudbury Valley school. I have worked and founded democratic schools, which are run as self-governing bodies, with the pupils/students having mayority vote or consent based boards that decide everything to the hiring of teachers. It is in this context that hierarchies are taken from the adults and given to the school - as a whole. It is in these schools, but also in child-parent relations that are more based in antropological evidence, that different and much less autoritative forms of child rearing are possible. I know of anarchists who would enroll their kids in these democratic schools, and of anarchists who would prefer Waldorf schools. I vastly prefer the direct democracy of the democratic school, although it can be raw, there are no creepy teachers, because they get voted out. So flattening the argument by saying "anarchists say this or that" is bad faith. A better soviety starts with the next generation. Giving them agency is learning them they matter and can change the world. Abuse is a fringe phenomena that will pop up wherever you have power imbalance. Giving adults less, and children more power is a remedy to that.
Not sure we should take them at face value. The way I see it they're pedos using anarchism opportunistically.
I think there are a lot of people making this argument genuinely who aren't thinking about the consent-oriented implications. But I agree, it should be treated harshly.
You don't ever seriously wrestle with the ideas of anarchism in this piece, especially not mass anarchist ones. Likely because you have not read any anarchist theory (yes there is anarchist theory even if you refuse to acknowledge it). Rather, it seems like you are taking the ideas of some self proclaimed anarchists on twitter as representative of the whole movement. As if MLs aren't also insufferable on twitter/social media...
I have a bit of experience of both anarchism and children's liberation movements. Yes there have been very problematic anarchists (Wolfi Landstreicher did a pro-pedo bit once) and very problematic childrens "liberators" (BtB did a podcast on the Odenwald schule) and the way I see it the problem isn't inherent to both. Anarchist theory often attracts people that are hyper-individualistic douchebags who will argue that any boundary or constraint is a affront to the indivdual. Being more of an AnPrim myself, I was more into the antropological side of things and researching how hunter-gatherer societies deal with child rearing. My interest in it that I have kids myself and I hated school and the way society treats children in general because it is coercive in ways that isn't neccesary or helpful (nobody says you should let a kid walk into traffic). The evolution of Childhood by Melvin Konner is a good book, just as "Free to Learn" by Peter Gray although the latter is more biased as he is personally involved with the Sudbury Valley school. I have worked and founded democratic schools, which are run as self-governing bodies, with the pupils/students having mayority vote or consent based boards that decide everything to the hiring of teachers. It is in this context that hierarchies are taken from the adults and given to the school - as a whole. It is in these schools, but also in child-parent relations that are more based in antropological evidence, that different and much less autoritative forms of child rearing are possible. I know of anarchists who would enroll their kids in these democratic schools, and of anarchists who would prefer Waldorf schools. I vastly prefer the direct democracy of the democratic school, although it can be raw, there are no creepy teachers, because they get voted out. So flattening the argument by saying "anarchists say this or that" is bad faith. A better soviety starts with the next generation. Giving them agency is learning them they matter and can change the world. Abuse is a fringe phenomena that will pop up wherever you have power imbalance. Giving adults less, and children more power is a remedy to that.