To Love Children

It has become more profitable to hate children than it is to love them, at least in the immediate material sense. How often are those who hate children given a carte blanche to spread vitriol by society as those who love children are lumped in with criminals, creeps, and people who want to harm them?

Those who practice love arouse everyone's suspicions as those who practice hate are given the shoulder. Those who practice harm are simply carrying out the deepest fantasies of those who harbor hate without resolve to act on it (which society tolerates), but hate when put into action is criminal. By contrast, those who practice harm are carrying out the antithesis of those who harbor love, whether the lovers are acting on their resolve or not (which society can not tolerate), but love when put into action is called charity.

In short, everyone is suspicious of love by itself--in this case, the love of a child, but when acted upon, only then it becomes divine. By contrast, no one is suspicious of hate by itself--the hate of children, but when acted upon, only then does it become harmful. People who hate children almost seem to have a protective barrier built around themselves that shields them from the suspicion of society. For surely, someone who hates children can not harm children, right?

Someone who loves children can not be given the same vote of confidence, as his mere interest in the benefit of children places him somewhere in the vicinity of the adult's piece of property (the child). And so long as the child remains property, all those who value it's worth can not be trusted even so much as a breathing on it, lest they snatch it up for themselves. Those who hate it, it's obvious, would never want to have it in the first place.

Comparing children to valued goods or pieces of property seems appropriate when attempting to comprehend the reasoning of why our society tolerates the hate of children before the love of children. Those who are not the owners of the property or granted temporary responsibility of it by it's owners--who find themselves simply sharing a view about the property's value with it's owners--simply can never be trustworthy. Those who own gold in their homes would be wise (at least according to popular thinking) to not keep company with strangers who also place a high value on that same gold. Those who detest gold (let's say it is possible) would be expected to be more trustworthy. Of course neither of these perspectives are true, deception is a powerful tool people will not think twice about to get what they want.

It is a function of a child's value as a living commodity for society that trust be assigned on those who should cross paths with it based entirely on how much they value the object. And in the minds of a possessive society, someone's evaluation (love or hate) of the object is inversely proportional to their degree of trustworthiness. In the minds of a paranoid society, those who profess love are only doing so because they are covering up for harmful desire. It doesn't cross anyone's mind that those who profess disinterest or hate could be on to their prejudices, playing their trust, in order to accomplish the same devious ends.

The result is the denial of non-parental love to children.