Queer ideology and children grooming

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2043610616671056


As many have noted, the rhetoric of innocence that envelops normative theories of childhood development has the damaging effect of reducing the child to a figure without complexity 
Here, I help to illustrate how some of the affective, libidinal, epistemological, and political insistences on childhood innocence can injure the child’s development and offer a new mode of analytical inquiry that insists upon embracing the child’s queer curiosity and patterns of growth

Ultimately, I suggest that queer theory’s growing interest in childhood as a site of analysis  could be strengthened by partnership with the sociological study of children’s education, while childhood studies could be bettered by thoughtful engagement with queer theory. I am, though, apprehensive about queer theories of the child that do not account for its relationality and lived experiences and spend time engaging with critiques of queer theory that do not account for racialization or continued legacies of colonialism.

I employ “queer” to both (a) classify sexuality and (b) reference deviance from cultural norms. Thus, children who self-identify or are identified with LGBTQ culture may be considered “queer,” but queer childhood should not be constrained to identificatory regimes or an assumption of the stability of sex or gender. I suggest that the queer contours of childhood are the child’s desires that refuse to grow up toward normative ways of being an adult and therefore, also, the residual adult desire to play and to be creative. In this sense, I borrow from queer theory’s insistence that queerness is that which undoes identity, not what holds it together. I am not interested in only promoting queer as a category of identity that promises social cohesion. Rather, I am thinking with Dina Georgis’ (2013) notion of queer affects as the return of memory and desire discarded for its ability to undo social identity. 


If the goal of queerness is to challenge the reproduction of the social order, then the Native child may already by queered. For instance, Colonel John Chivington, the leader of the famous massacre at Sand Creek, charged his followers to not only kill Native adults by to manipulate their reproductive organs and to kill their children because “nits make lice.
In this circumstance, the Native child is not invested with assurance of futurity and cannot cohere in Edelman’s privileged portrayal of the cult of the Child. The Native child, for Smith, is queered because it “is not a guarantor of the reproductive future of white supremacy; it is the nit that undoes it” (p. 48). Smith makes her ambivalence toward Edelman’s project clear: She finds “the idea of reproductive continuity as homophobia” (46) useful. 

She continues, “That is, it seems difficult to dismantle multinational capitalism, settler colonialism, white supremacy, and heteropatriarchy without some kind of political program, however provisional it may be” (Smith, 2010). Smith invokes Jose Munoz in her assertion that “relationality is not pretty,” but is required in the context of genocide and its enduring violence

 I wonder if and how thought surrounding childhood might be sufficiently queered so that it resists being constrained by normative developmentalism and productively challenges how national, racial, classed, and gendered affiliations and identifications impact the distribution of rights and administration of education to children. This query, though related, is not accounted for in Edelman’s polemic because he juxtaposes queerness to children. Although Edelman aims to deposit his critique in a post-political world, his analysis has been critiqued as an effort to elide collective narratives of struggle.


Queer theories of childhood that do not account for histories of nation-states, slavery, or genocide cannot help effectively reimagine pedagogy of and for children. What does holding “childhood” and “queer,” seemingly opposites, in some kind of productive tension achieve if it cannot also consider the devastating effects of racism or colonialism? The It Gets Better social media campaign, as summarized below, offers an account of queer futurity that does not carefully attend to the corrosive force of racism and its colonial antecedents or the ways that social class can erode one’s ability (or desire) to transgress the location in which they are embedded.


djecija nevinost je heteropatrijarhalna opresija
treba uvest seksualni odgoj u skole i vrtice i oslobodit ih od nametnute rasisticke, heteronormativne, seksisticke i kolonijazotrske bijelo-supremacijske opresije

prvo treba djecu razdvojit po rasnim identitetima
zatim proglasit bijeli identitet kao los i zao, 
kao onaj koji odrzava kontinuitet tlacenja marginaliziranih identiteta i dogovoran za sva zla
zatim treba djeci ponudit opciju da izadju iz tog bijelog loseg identiteta koji nije cool usvajajuci neku od seksualnih (queer) identiteta, ili neku od mentalnih bolesti kao identitet

tako ce se djeca mentalno ostetit za sav zivot, a time i prekinut kulturni kontinuitet sa roditelja na djecu koju roditelj vise ne razumije i kojima vise nije prijatelj
prekinut ce se generacijska veza
i dobit ce se novi social justice ratnik

i debo ce veselo tapicat nogicama

treba uvest novi svjetonazor, novi metanarativ 
zato vam ona govornica na gej biciklijadi veli ne postoji normalno

queer teorija je dijete kriticke teorije takodje
i ima isti cilj kao i ostale kriticke teorije

How public schools brainwash young kids with harmful transgender ideology (nypost.com)

Sve je to OK ... liberalizam se "razvija", ne mreš ga metnuti u jedan okvir i tam ga držati.

Budi progresivan i uključiv.

Sovak wrote:Sve je to OK ... liberalizam se "razvija", ne mreš ga metnuti u jedan okvir i tam ga držati.

Budi progresivan i uključiv.

"liberalizam"
u biti identitetski marksizam
specificno americki proizvod

evo produkta tog obrazovanja - 14:56

https://youtu.be/4k-1I7hjt4c?t=898

Djeca su im u pozadini uvijek bila, njih oblikuj po pedo progresivnoj vjeri i misija uspjela

n_razbojnik wrote:Djeca su im u pozadini uvijek bila, njih oblikuj po pedo progresivnoj vjeri i misija uspjela

doslovno im nista nije sveto
tako je Mao podjelio djecu u grupe po 5 crvenih i 5 crnih
crni su losi i trebaju postat crveni da bi bili dobri

In The Critical Turn in Education: From Marxist Critique to Poststructuralist Feminism to Critical Theories of Race (2016), Isaac Gottesman provides a historically informed understanding of key issues in critical educational theory and research. Although this book does not define critical theory as a concept or practice, it does provide readers with a deep perspective on the conversations that took place and are currently taking place within the field. From the beginning, Gottesman makes clear that the purpose of his book is two-fold: 1) to demonstrate how and why critical educational ideas emerged and how those ideas developed within a specific socio-historic context and 2) to illustrate how reflecting on these ideas may offer insight into struggles currently experienced in contemporary educational and social spaces. Organized into six different “critical turns,” 

Gottesman outlines how key figures (and their ideas) build on and confront one another as the field of critical educational theory developed. By arranging the book in this manner, Gottesman not only achieves his purposes for writing the book, but also documents what Apple describes as “the increasing sophistication of the field from its early emphasis on education as only a mechanism of class and economic reproduction to its attention to education as a site of resistance…” (p. xv). Given the current landscape in education and ongoing dialogues around the purpose of school and educational reform, Gottesman’s book is an important contribution to the field and something all educational scholars should read.

The second chapter of The Critical Turn focuses on another canonical text in the field of critical educational theory—Schooling in Capitalist America, written by Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis. By contextualizing the production and reception of Schooling, Gottesman connects the emergence of Marxist thought in education with the rise of an Academic Left. He does this, for one, by providing biographies of both Bowles and Gintis, highlighting that the ideas brought forth by Bowles and Gintis derived from their own intellectual backgrounds. Secondly, Gottesman details how Schooling revealed the importance of “cross-field and cross-disciplinary support for the emergence of radical scholarship in the field of education…” (p. 33). The connections made through this interdisciplinary work are significant because they point to the necessity of intersectionality in the field of critical educational scholarship. While somewhat challenging for readers unfamiliar with Marxist ideology, Gottesman uses this chapter to highlight how Schooling introduced Marxist social analysis in the field of education. More importantly, Gottesman situates how later figures (such as Apple and Giroux) move away from a political and economic Marxist approach, instead focusing on a cultural Marxist one. Following the chapter on Bowles and Gintis, Gottesman centers the third chapter on the work of Michael Apple. Referring to Ideology and Curriculum, Gottesman documents how Ideology “helped initiate a broad turn in the field of education in the United States to critical Marxist thought as a lens through which to analyze the relationship between school and society”



The Critical Turn in Education: From Marxist Critique to Poststructuralist Feminism to Critical Theories of Race (iastate.edu)