Childrens Liberation Resurfaces In The 1970's Summary
The Children's Liberation readings were interesting because, for many, children are not viewed as oppressed. The "oppression" that they endure is oftentimes understood as their necessary role as subordinates to adults. However, the readings made me see that there is a lot of hypocrisy in demanding liberation, in fighting so that no group has power over another, but also acting as a restrictive authoritarian over children on a daily basis. In "Children's Liberation Resurfaces in the 1970's," we clearly see this hypocrisy via Sally's conversation with her daughter, Beth, who points to the use of children as pawns in women's liberation activism. The fact that the kids were invested enough to create their own organization, newsletter, manifesto,
…show more content…
For, besides what I know about Freud, I had no idea that therapy as a whole was discriminatory, nor that psychoanalysis was restricted to the social elites. In the introduction, what stood out to me most was the part that said a conventional therapist "uses his prestige to discredit and slur" social issues (xi). For me, this painted traditional therapists as enablers of the patriarchy who ignored the sociopolitical conditions that surely impacted their patients. They seem to have pushed people away from focusing on 'institutional responsibility' and instead encouraged them to focus on their own, individual problems so that they wouldn't become a threat to the social order. As a response, radical therapy was dangerous because it meant fighting this ingrained system which maintained conformity. In promoting a democratization of therapy, its supporters worked to ensure that people were actually encouraged to pursue change, not just adjust to their problems. In the manifesto, it is made clear that the success of this movement was dependent on solidarity. For change to occur, people of all backgrounds needed to rebel against the status quo. This meant rejecting mainstream beliefs, such as the fact that sexual deviance was neurotic behavior, or the idea that heteronormativity was the only option. Hence, radical therapy meant removing the denigrating stigma placed on marginalized identities in order to facilitate their
For, besides what I know about Freud, I had no idea that therapy as a whole was discriminatory, nor that psychoanalysis was restricted to the social elites. In the introduction, what stood out to me most was the part that said a conventional therapist "uses his prestige to discredit and slur" social issues (xi). For me, this painted traditional therapists as enablers of the patriarchy who ignored the sociopolitical conditions that surely impacted their patients. They seem to have pushed people away from focusing on 'institutional responsibility' and instead encouraged them to focus on their own, individual problems so that they wouldn't become a threat to the social order. As a response, radical therapy was dangerous because it meant fighting this ingrained system which maintained conformity. In promoting a democratization of therapy, its supporters worked to ensure that people were actually encouraged to pursue change, not just adjust to their problems. In the manifesto, it is made clear that the success of this movement was dependent on solidarity. For change to occur, people of all backgrounds needed to rebel against the status quo. This meant rejecting mainstream beliefs, such as the fact that sexual deviance was neurotic behavior, or the idea that heteronormativity was the only option. Hence, radical therapy meant removing the denigrating stigma placed on marginalized identities in order to facilitate their