[āDespite adultsā attempts to explain love, it remained elusive and incomprehensible. Its nature was undefined, with the promise that one day, we would grasp its meaning. In this system, families are tasked with guiding children toward achieving dominant ideals of success, love, and happiness. How can parents teach love to their children? I donāt believe it can be directly taught. Love is something that must be experienced. However, in our society, adhering to certain markers or ābullet pointsā of love seems to guide us toward our perceived life goalsāour partners, families, and careers.
However, reconciling these ideals with the realities of family life can be challenging, particularly when the notion of enduring romance clashes with the complexities of everyday existence. Romantic love is often viewed as the cornerstone of a legitimate family structure, adhering to heterosexual norms. Yet the presence or absence of this love can significantly impact the familyās perceived success. Shifting the focus from tangible concepts like survival to fleeting emotions like romance places a heavy burden on individuals, as the success or failure of the family becomes contingent on personal choices rather than broader institutions.
Notions such as āIām bad at loveā or āIām no good at relationshipsā highlight the shift toward personal responsibility for the familyās success. Divorce or single parenthood are shamed and discouraged at any cost. Gendered roles further complicate matters, with social expectations dictating how individuals should navigate romantic relationships to fulfill hegemonic norms. Think āmen are from Mars; women are from Venus.ā These deeply ingrained ideas often lead individuals to strive for inclusion within systems that may not fully acknowledge or represent them. Once integrated into these systems, individuals may inadvertently adopt characteristics perpetuating a cycle of conformity.
Capitalism, colonialism, and heteropatriarchy have long depended on the idea of romantic heterosexual love and marriage. First, marriage acts as a way to control society, enforcing traditional gender roles and ensuring a steady supply of workers. Women take on unpaid household chores and childcare, freeing men to work in the capitalist economy. Second, marriage helps maintain economic stability by consolidating wealth and property within families and across generations. It also fuels consumerism, with weddings and related industries driving spending. Third, colonialism imposed Western ideas of love and marriage on colonized peoples, erasing Indigenous values and ways of life. These myths and violent systems uphold power structures, reinforce gender norms, and fuel economic exploitation, all while promoting the idea that romantic love is essential for happiness and success.
In addition to romantic love, society primes everyone to pedestal white childbirth as a way to perpetuate patriarchy. This hyper-valorized version of childbirth does not match the material experiences of a birthing body who is Black, brown, queer, or poor, which often exposes structural failures around bodily autonomy, reproduction, or care. This tension between rhetoric and reality breeds feelings of failure or inadequacy. Children born out of wedlock or conceived through violence or casual encounters often face stigma and societal judgment, generating feelings of worthlessness or self-hatred among parents and children. These structural failings lead to and perpetuate real interpersonal harm.
Within this settler-colonial construct, the role of children is primarily viewed as preparatory. Parents are told to guide them through socialization processes to navigate educational systems, pursue higher education, enter the workforce, marry, and have children, perpetuating a cycle of dominant norms and expectations. Actions align with the structures, and therefore children are often treated as possessions or territories to be colonized by parents. This mindset leads to surveillance, control, punishment, and even disownment, all under the guise of ensuring the childās well-being and success in life. The pressure to conform to traditional roles and the lack of recognition for childrenās rights contribute to a culture in which abuse can be hidden and unaddressed, ultimately supporting the cycle of abuse within the family structure.
The family policing system says that it intervenes on behalf of children. However, it is the building block of surveillance. Judges oversee parents and literally assume a parental authority of children and parents via legal doctrines. Caseworkers, social workers, and the web of mandated reporters are told to ignore what the children want, and instead do what they think is best. In sum, the very people who conceptualize themselves as child savers abandon the children they purport to protect. They not only adopt the narrative of authoritarianism, they are the authority. They are a part of the cycle of control.ā]
Ignacio G. HutĆa Xeiti Rivera from abolish the family, from how to end family policing: from outrage to action, edited by erin miles cloud, erica r. meiners, and shannon perez darby, 2025