To speak of a «right to a child» instrumentalizes and
objectifies the child.
Not exact matches
This only conditions a
child's mind to notice these things and view them as forbidden, rather than training them for self - control through the simple acknowledgement that humans are by nature sexual beings, and that the female form is beautiful, something to be appreciated and not
objectified.
Hence, the
child is
objectified.
And your position that sex without the risk of pregnancy
objectifies and dehumanizes
children is pure bullshit.
Now that men and women received greater control over whether or not they conceived
children further
objectified them, and their wanted - ness became even more pronounced.
If whoever wants a
child has the right to a
child, then the
child is
objectified.
He
objectifies the story and relates it to himself and to the collective «we» with phrases that make the latter dependent: «like a resentful
child,» «broken,» «caught.»
They spend 18 years
objectifying the birth family, nullifying any connection, and then when the
child is an adult says «well I would never do anything to stop you from searching now», never acknowledging that they spent 18 years drumming it into a
child's head that they shouldn't care about who this other family was.
Following Prince, the threat White describes is not that
children might be represented or even
objectified, but rather that the power of the viewer is mutable, and forever diminishing.
To achieve acceptable results, it is necessary to
objectify heated discussions and put the focus back onto the
children.
Just as good men need to speak out against sexist jokes, remarks that
objectify women and to challenge male supremacists who seek to use the
children in order to maintain what they believe is their male privilege to control women, good mental health professionals also must speak out against the minority in their profession who routinely hurt women and
children whether out of greed, sexism or ignorance.