Age is a social construct

[SouthLondoner]

I believe it is wrong that children throughout history have been undermined, in the past they had to work in dangerous conditions in the factories/mines/workhouses, yet those who are under the age of 16/18 still don't have the right to vote. Also what is most disturbing is the lack of decision making children have in the household, what most marxist/feminist philosophy have missed out on is how the patriarchal household goes like this: Male-Female- Children.

As honorable as the feminist cause has been, it fails to notice the children. The children are always the ones to be beaten up by the father; and verbally abused by the mother. When you look at infant mortality statistics in the third world, its depressing how physically children are being killed off by the capitalists.

I believe that we need to start giving children more rights, and their own authority in the family, rather than being the "pets". We can start campaigns which recognise adult privilege, which enables adult access to certain fields and avenues which children are denied. Children can then begin to enter the work field, and reach their potential, however i am not talking about work fields equivalent to slave labour, we need to introduce a minimum wage to ensure that this exploitation doesn't follow forth.

So in the future i beg all the adults on here to tell their adult privilege to f*ck off !

[Redmau5]

While I agree that children need more rights and protection in a world which seeks to exploit and abuse them, I don't think we can give children "authority" in any meaningful sense when they can't fully grasp the concept of authority. This isn't borne out of any discrimination against children but a mere understanding of physiology and biology. When I was 18, I thought I had the world figured out. Now I'm 25 and I realize I was extremely naive about most of the subjects I thought I knew inside out.

Children need a safe environment in which to learn and develop, not to be handed some "authority" out of some misguided sense of equality.

[Ace High]

Yeah, I don't know about this argument.... Children are not oppressed just because they must do what adults tell them to do. Aren't adults supposed to teach children about society and the way things work? Children are not able to grasp even the concept of oppression, much less being actually oppressed. Nah, I just don't buy that. There are parents who are too authoritarian on their children and that is wrong, but it is not some kind of structural oppression.

[RedBen]

personally, kids really don't know anything to start off. they are a blank slate, sponges eager to learn. they don't have experience enough to have authority to make their own decisions ENTIRELY, much less for the whole family. i disagree with rigorous, strict, or abusive upbringings(my parents beat the hell out of us like you wouldn't believe with anything they could get their hands on, and said insulting and disgusting things i didn't even hear in boot camp). i just think kids aren't an oppressed class generally. obviously there are those who exploit and abuse them, this is wrong. as a whole, i don't think they are oppressed for being naive. school closings here in chicago are oppression, not some kid having to eat vegetables and have healthy sleeping habits.

[SonofRage]

I'm sympathetic, but this is complicated. I'm a father and this is something I think about a lot. My child is too young (two years old) to have full freedom obviously, but it's definitely something my wife and I grapple with. The way I look at it, and this is funny for me to say as an anarchist, is that it's sort of like the idea of the withering away of the state. Parental authority is just necessary for a good part of a child's life, but as time goes by that needs to decrease.

[VDS]

I understand the sentiment, but the argument itself is sort of shaky. Think of how short-sighted kids can be. Think about how large a role their hormones play in their teen years. Think about how a good environment can usually make all the difference for their future.

Children DO need to be more protected AND to have more rights. Not to the extent that I feel that you're proposing. Children/Teens can't fully grasp many concepts until later in life.

As a father myself, I want to give my son the same sort of freedom my parents gave me growing up, WITHOUT giving him too much. It's a fine line, but it's what growing up/being a parent is about IMO.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Age itself is not so much a social-construct. How we view age can be, or rather hoew we view children can be.

[Sam_b]

I don't understand this post at all. The most illuminating part of it is that because children are 'oppressed' in the family structure, the way you intend to relieve this is that they become oppressed in the workplace instead. And to introduce 'a' minimum wage? Well I'm sure you are aware of the levels of minimum wage differing between ages in the UK already, so either you're advocating that either a) children get paid less than minimum wage, or b) the same wage itself. Therefore you're either advocating that a) people get put out of work because work can be done cheaply by children, or b) that working class families will at times be forced to make children work so that the family can make ends meet. There is nothing progressive about a return to Victorian Britain.

The real problem is about the construct of the nuclear family. It's not about painting all parents about being abusive to children either, which is a shoddy and sweeping generalisation which you make. Their is ageism, yes, but adult privilege within a family structure? Just silly.

[Quail]

I have a 3 year old child. As a parent I try to differentiate between legitimate authority, e.g., making him hold my hand near busy roads so that he's safe, and illegitimate authority, e.g., telling him he can't paint because I don't feel like cleaning up after him, or telling him to do something "because I said so". I always try to give him a real reason why we can or can't do something.

I think that children need a safe environment in which to develop. It would be dangerous and irresponsible to treat children like mini-adults. I suppose it's time to give them responsibility when you feel satisfied that they can deal with it, and if they fuck up they're not going to fuck up too disastrously, if that makes sense. Children grow up at different rates, so I don't think you can give a real cut off point where all young people are mature enough to do certain things, either.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I have a 3 year old child. As a parent I try to differentiate between legitimate authority, e.g., making him hold my hand near busy roads so that he's safe, and illegitimate authority, e.g., telling him he can't paint because I don't feel like cleaning up after him, or telling him to do something "because I said so". I always try to give him a real reason why we can or can't do something.


I think that is something essential people often neglect.
From what I've seen children have a nature to question things. Always asking "why?". Which can be a bit annoying at times, which is why many parents try to dumb that down, but is essential if you want children to be critical thinkers, or good academics I suppose.

[Hegemonicretribution]

First of all I am appalled by the ageism shown in this thread. I hadn't viewed it because I figured it would be a foregone conclusion. I was wrong.


When I was 18, I thought I had the world figured out. Now I'm 25 and I realize I was extremely naive about most of the subjects I thought I knew inside out.Wait until you are 35, or 40, or 60....same thing again. Here the voting age is 16 (I was over 16 when that happened), but I can tell you that at 14 I was more political than 90% of the population. Would I draw different conclusions now? Of course I would. The fact remains though, that my views were far more considered than that of much of the electorate.

I live where there are a lot of elderly and retired people, should those who live in sheltered communities be denied a say? Or should we restrict voting to those that are, say, 25? Okay this is overblown, but you see what I am getting at.




they are a blank slate, sponges eager to learnChildren are NOT a blank slate. I will not get into a philosophical or scientific debate over this matter, but I would never accept that claim. They have innate abilities, and predispositions. Of course environment plays a role, but they have a loosely defined form.



Think about how large a role their hormones play in their teen years.:ohmy: I will not say anything much on this....just WOW


'Children' have at times been secondary and even primary care givers, they have been labourers, they have been mothers, fathers and they have been husbands and wives. The children we consider today are less independent and less able to cope simply because that is the role we require of them. They are incapable because adults say they are, adults tell them they are, and adults would not allow them to be otherwise.

No, they are not the same as someone who has undergone a formative process of socialisation and puberty, but nor are they innately sweetie grabbing, pants wetting, toy mad crying machines.

The essence of childhood is not the crux here though. At the moment we have many children who, for various reasons, would likely struggle with anything like the demands of adulthood. Does that mean we should deny them representation?

If there is a vote, then why not allow a degree of child representation. The children may well grow up, and change their votes, but then more children would be born. There will not be more children than adults, but nor would the child be as depoliticised until an adult tells them that they can play. If children have to live under the rule of law, why should they not have a degree of representation in this regard?

The fact is we have many adults who are not political so much as they are tribal. Their formative years are spent being told that decision making will come later, but why not incorporate this into childhood. To say they decide for all is just a fallacy, I am sure all of the over 18s (or 25s) can vote to keep bedtime and homework.

In response to the OP, the role of children in the workforce and in the family is two different issue as far as I can tell.

[Invader Zim]

Well, obviously there are exceptions to everything. It is certainly true that some young people, particularly in their teenage years, can and do cultivate keen political interest and have achieved the intellectual maturation to responsibly participate in modern democratic politics from an informed and responsible position - while a great many 'adults' have not and ultimately never will. However, by and large, these young people are relatively rare exceptions. It is an error to deny that, and equally misleading to therefore conclude that because a small minority of young teenagers have reached the point in their lives that such a level of participation is feasible, and desirable even, that the line in the sand should be moved back or even abolished entirely. Children are, by dint of their necessary position as dependents (economically, socially and also politically), open to abuse without a degree of guardianship. That is true of a great many aspects of life, be it education, personal finances, sexuality, and also politics. Children develop at different rates, some may be able to engage responsibly and in an informed fashion in the 'adult' sphere without guardianship, but most cannot.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Hey AK! My point was not that all children possess necesary political skills en masse, rather my point was;

1 That most adults do not, so majority ability should not be the acid test.
2 That children will always be a minority group with minority interests. They could be afforded a degree of input without breaking everything.
3 That by politicising them earlier we create more political adults, and people used to demanding and having a say.

18 year olds change their view, but generally get a say. They will never form the majority. The same may be said for all children. If they have interests let them be represented.

Remember at times serfs were deemed to lack capacity, or women, or many others.

[RedBen]

Children are NOT a blank slate. I will not get into a philosophical or scientific debate over this matter, but I would never accept that claim.
that reply speaks volumes. religion, language, prejudices, how to tie shoes, how to go potty, STEM, ect... not blank slates? i did not imply that they are stupid or unable to think, but without points of reference, or units of measure, how else could they learn? man did not one day wake up and magically understand the wheel, fire, cooked food. louis pastor did not wake one day as a child and say "hey! i got an idea!!!" it takes work, learning, reference, and teaching. i do agree that children have innate understandings that get perversed through indoctrination and grooming, like emotion. children seem to sometimes sympathize much more with other people than many adults, but i see my 3 year old niece and nephew every single day, and sharing and cooperation do not seem to be in born. i do not believe in human nature. i believe in people being reflections of their cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. if i had been born into a buddhist society, i may have been a buddhist, but i was born an american, and as such, i identify with the english language. i have heard about pedophiles hiding under the guise of "liberation" of children to justify lowering or abolishing the age of consent. this to my mind is exploitation. i am not assuming this is any "pro" children people here, but it does raise questions. i wouldn't allow my niece and nephew to drive, does that make me a fascist?:rolleyes:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

To be fair, re: the OP, Children's liberation is a thing that has been talked about by feminists in particular (though certainly not mainstream liberal feminists).
As for children's capacities, they vary wildly - just like adults.
I have a close friend who attended an "experimental" elementary school where children and teachers set up the curriculum cooperatively, and children graded their own progress. While there are certainly other factors at play, I think it's telling that she excelled academically, and was offered full funding for her PhD to a spread of the best schools in N. America. My point being, encouraging children to develop their capacities, to make decisions, etc. is what's likely to lead to adults with similar aptitudes.
I think the treatment of children in our society goes a long way to explaining the slavish resignation of many adults.

[blake 3:17]

I find it bizarre how children aren't given responsibilities and then become adults and are given shit for being irresponsible.

I've been reading stuff on small scale peasant agriculture, and one of the things that happens is that on family farms is that they'd be inefficient in order to take the time to involve the children in production.

I've been working a group of families with children who really lack street smarts. For various reasons, they have a lot done for them, and have learnt to be pretty passive/helpless.

I knew there was a trend, but was alarmed by these statistics when they came out this spring:


Yet in Canada, a recent survey revealed that while 58 per cent of parents walked to school when they were children, only 28 per cent of their own kids were doing the same today. "That's a reduction of 50 per cent in one generation. That's substantial by any estimate," said Mark Tremblay, chief scientific officer of Active Healthy Kids Canada.

From 2000 to 2010, the percentage of youth aged 5-17 using only inactive modes of transportation for school commutes increased from 51 per cent to 62 per cent.

The report found many data sources in different age groups suggested only 25 to 35 per cent of Canadian kids and youth use active transport to and from school. Among youth aged 15 to 17, time spent walking daily dipped from 17 minutes to 11 minutes between 1992 and 2010. The commentary on the article is all about physical health, but my concerns are also about kids self determination and developing the ability to cope in the world.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2013/05/21/physical-activity-children-walk-bike.html

[slum]

there's a kernel of truth in this and i can see how OP would come to these conclusions. i think what OP is seeing tho is the inevitable bad treatment of a population which is systematically disempowered in the home and easily exploitable as cheap labor (which can drive down wages for adults, always useful)*. there are other populations that fit both these descriptions, or fit only the latter. i'm not sure the central question needs to be that of children's capacity to reason or behave as autonomous people at any given age. those questions would be largely moot in a society organized on a non-exploitative, rational basis (and i suggest such a society would include communal child-rearing)
*that and small fingers make for good maquiladora/etc workers

for the record, children's rights as OP describes them have been part of many feminist efforts since, well, ever, as women have been primarily responsible for childcare in the non-communal family unit. women who are abused in the home often have the safety of their children leveled against them (and many live in fear of losing their kids to CPS if they are in poverty), and you are correct, women who are abused in the home (or not) often carry that abuse on to the person in the family unit who is even more powerless than they are. there's a graphic floating around the net somewhere that shows a male worker being berated by his boss, who goes home and beats his wife; the wife is seen beating the kid, and then the kid is seen torturing the family cat. reductive and lacking as the image may be, there's some truth in it. this is, of course, not even considering wives and mothers who are children themselves.

feminist demands such as paid maternity leave, equal pay, birth control, health care including sexual health, an end to domestic violence, etc are all demands that include the interest of children. so too, i'd argue, demands for good public schools, an end to police brutality and the mass imprisonment of young men of color (altho mass incarc. of women of color is also huge) are feminist demands and demands in favor of children's quality of life.

capitalism starves, overworks, abandons, and alienates all of us. children are especially vulnerable, and i think their well-being in this irrational, exploitative arrangement of society is heavily linked to that of women. not until the overthrow of capitalism and the creation of something new will either population be freed entirely.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'll tell the cashier at the liquor store that age is a social construct the next time he doesn't buy that I'm 21.

[Rafiq]

Abuse of children in the family is a result of patriarchy. It's very simple to understand.

[Tenka]

A few people have responded very well to the OP in this thread, but I wonder if it is not just an experiment in clothing "Abolish Child Labour Laws!" in social-progressive language....

[blake 3:17]

A few people have responded very well to the OP in this thread, but I wonder if it is not just an experiment in clothing "Abolish Child Labour Laws!" in social-progressive language....

I've certainly thought that at times. It'd be a totally foolish thing to do, but we live in a world of bizarre contradictions. In many parts of the world, and through history, people are/were essentially adults at around age 17.

I used to teach art to kids in one of the most densely populated areas in the city. Mix of refugees, and immigrants, who were economic refugees, so what's the diff? Anyways... There were a couple of 7 & 8 year olds who'd come on their own initiative to help me set up the art room. Putting out tables and chairs, sharpening pencils, doing what was necessary. So fucking awesome. Meant a lot of extra work -- had to get there earlier & make sure there were jobs for them, but it was so great to see that spirit there.


I'm certainly not in favour of making life harder for children and young people -- I spend a great deal of my waking hours trying to make their lives easier. But I see a lot of kids who can't tie their shoe laces or cross the street safely, but can get to level 370000 on Super Mario. Is that really making it easier?

At a workshop I went to a few years ago, on art education for young children, a presenter made two very interesting suggestions -- giving the children broken crayons instead of brand new markers and to put not put out a pair of scissors, paint brush, etc for every child.

The aim in the former would be to develop dexterity, hand strength, and perseverance, and the aim in the latter would be to develop social skills of sharing tools and materials.

I applaud Quail for not using "Because I said so" with a three year old. I was talking with a friend, whose kids I look after on occasion, and with older kids, and we've both become comfortable with "Because I said so." Maybe not the phrase itself, but the spirit. I'll explain it to them as such -- not using that term necessarily though once in a while one might know it -- somebody's in charge, and in some situations it's me. But those leadership relationships should be built on trust and respect earned.

I'm an anarchist/libertarian by spirit -- I just like to do my sh*t -- but freedom without responsibility is over rated.

[Karlorax]

There is a tendency on the left to see everything as a "social construct." First, what exactly a "social construct" is is usually not flushed out. Secondly, there are real biological differences between young and older people that do have political consequences. It is the case that when one is considered an adult is socially determined. In some societies, one is considered an adult at puberty. In others, there is a period of adolescence. Even so, just because adulthood is determined by social rules does not mean age is simply a social thing. It obviously isn't.

[blake 3:17]

There is a tendency on the left to see everything as a "social construct." First, what exactly a "social construct" is is usually not flushed out. Secondly, there are real biological differences between young and older people that do have political consequences. It is the case that when one is considered an adult is socially determined. In some societies, one is considered an adult at puberty. In others, there is a period of adolescence. Even so, just because adulthood is determined by social rules does not mean age is simply a social thing. It obviously isn't.

I'd ignored the thread's title, but good call!

Many parts of the revolutionary and radical Left have embraced some very bizarre and thoughtless forms of anti-essentialism that have their own political consequences. Like keeping the Left irrelevant.

[Hegemonicretribution]

There is a tendency on the left to see everything as a "social construct." First, what exactly a "social construct" is is usually not flushed out. Secondly, there are real biological differences between young and older people that do have political consequences. It is the case that when one is considered an adult is socially determined. In some societies, one is considered an adult at puberty. In others, there is a period of adolescence. Even so, just because adulthood is determined by social rules does not mean age is simply a social thing. It obviously isn't.
Age is not simply a social construct, but a lot of the things that go along with it are. Perhaps childhood would be a better term? The construct may reflect biological age, but is not explained fully by it? Just a shot, but I feel it is perhaps fair.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What is a Young Person?

A young person means many different things to many different people. To some this implies a child (1-10), to others this means an adolescent (10-12), some believe such a term means to encompass teenagers while a final category files away young people as anyone who falls into the “under 30” label.

Each category has its strengths and weaknesses: none are false insofar as they fail to fully elaborate on the purpose of this human being. In its whole age is a tricky subject as it is something much like race or gender: something we created so as to better comprehend our universe.

For argument’s sake, however, for the sake of realism, we shall define a young person (forsaking the concept of “Age”) as someone who is yet to realize their entire bodily growth yet also someone who upon reaching this growth still has life experience to acquire.

Youth as Vassals to be Filled

A point is raised: young people are not adults, they have yet to develop intellectually and mentally the comprehension which supposedly gives older individuals an edge in bourgeois society. This is an important point not to be overlooked. Concerning? Perhaps it is a little. Such is only concerning, however, when one begins to dictate roles for these people to fill. Any anxiety producing results cannot be examined without first shedding light on the roles to begin with. Certainly no one is arguing that youth take control of a stately function without first being educated and steeled in such a profession beforehand for a durable timeframe. After all, if we venture into verbal conflict regarding how young people are not fit to chair a position in labor, government, state, administration (etc) without first allowing this person to have been trained and proven themselves, then we are no better than the conservative who raves that the working class is not smart enough to run society.

The Young Person’s Role in Capitalist Society

Now is not the time to dive into research paper quality polemics concerning today’s youth (such will come later). That being said now is the correct time to grasp a bit of the young person’s role in capitalist society; for if we do not understand their role now how are we to know their purpose in socialist society?

Young people today are in a precarious situation: depending on their age they are either able to work (usually at lower than minimum wage) or unable to work at all. Most are subject to authority figures who distort their development. Nearly all live as a dependent (blinded as they are by reactionary edicts).

Their time is split between school, home life, and peer socialization. Since most are unemployed (whether by choice or circumstance) and supported by their parents, they act primarily as a consumer conduit, a market in which to hound their proletarian guardians for funds. Obviously, this is a two-way street: they are given their means of subsistence and recreation, yet remain oppressed for doing/been forced to and so are (generally) unable to escape; remaining in this muddle they become increasingly “bourgeoisified” as corporations pander to their “sub-culture”.

The Role of Parents

Traditionally speaking, when concerning capitalist nations, the role of parents has been to ensure that there exists a continuous supply of workers to replace the older generation when they become unable to carry out the demands of the day. Beyond this we see superficial reasons: to guide youth along the correct path, to teach them proper habits, tutor them in basic interactions and so forth. All of which are but variations of the same theme: to snuff out individuality and enforce the status quo, to belittle alternate modes of childrearing.

The truth is simple: the money commodity has enslaved the human species to a stilted form of promulgation; this is not to say that parent-like figures will be unneeded but rather the content and form of this figure needs to be explained. In communist society, when young people are coming into their own to demand the change they wish to see, the role of parents will be replaced by that of the community, of the commune, and the wider world. Education, the “guiding” which our socially conservative friends so often repeat, will be given without the snuffing out of free will. With many different care givers bundled with a lack of oppressive mechanisms will come a new identity.

Youth Action

Young people know they are being screwed over. Otherwise youth rights organizations would not exist (however small they may appear). If this was not true than student unions would be a fantasy reserved for the delusional. And finally, if not true than the “lazy, self-absorbed nature” which is currently attributed to them would not exist. Through the means of strikes, “delinquency”, and civil disobedience, young people make their oppression known: drinking laws, voting age, municipal curfew regulations, unequal pay, and more all mark their demands for change. The “trick” to unlocking fiery potential among this crowd is to locate their grievances and how it relates to capitalism as a whole.

Socialist Youth

Let’s fast-forward: With dissolving economic foundations means also the dissolution of the tentacles of oppression which face young people. With neo-liberal capitalism and its emphasis on “human rights” (including youth rights) facing damnation, young people will finally be able to grasp the root of the problem and free themselves from parental (two guardian) control: they will seek separate work and living conditions. In turn this will encourage independent development. Without the constricting chains of Ageism dwelling in the system youth will finally be able to break away from reactionary pillars of species promulgation and establish a new model catered to all of society, and not just those who have had the good grace to live a longer time than other less-privileged members.

This task, I believe, is reserved for the youth. While “adults” may collaborate with young people so as to help jointly build the society of the future, I do not think this is something which can be forced on young people. Just as Colored persons must determine their own liberty path and just as Queers do the same- free from the influence of individuals who have not known such fates, youth must be the ultimate judge and juror when it comes to their role in human civilization.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Is it "Ageist" or an expression of "adult privilege" to say that 99.9% of five year olds should not be allowed by society to drive? How do I distinguish between ageism and common sense?

Saying "Age" is a "social construct" isn't helpful - there are plenty of useful social constructs out there, plenty of oppressive ones, and some which seem to be a little bit of either one in different contexts. Not every "social construct" is bad.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Is it "Ageist" or an expression of "adult privilege" to say that 99.9% of five year olds should not be allowed by society to drive? How do I distinguish between ageism and common sense?

Depends on the society, and as I said in my post, the task at hand: if the person in question is completely incapable of carrying out such a task then it would not be an expression of privilege to suggest that a five year old cannot drive. So I think that is the line: between what one is physically and mentally capable of doing with training and where they would be without.


Saying "Age" is a "social construct" isn't helpful - there are plenty of useful social constructs out there, plenty of oppressive ones, and some which seem to be a little bit of either one in different contexts. Not every "social construct" is bad.

True but diminishing the value of Ageism simply because it has not traditionally been seen as negative as racism and other reactionary social-constructs does not help matters either.

[human strike]

I believe it is wrong that children throughout history have been undermined, in the past they had to work in dangerous conditions in the factories/mines/workhouses, yet those who are under the age of 16/18 still don't have the right to vote. Also what is most disturbing is the lack of decision making children have in the household, what most marxist/feminist philosophy have missed out on is how the patriarchal household goes like this: Male-Female- Children.

As honorable as the feminist cause has been, it fails to notice the children. The children are always the ones to be beaten up by the father; and verbally abused by the mother. When you look at infant mortality statistics in the third world, its depressing how physically children are being killed off by the capitalists.

I believe that we need to start giving children more rights, and their own authority in the family, rather than being the "pets". We can start campaigns which recognise adult privilege, which enables adult access to certain fields and avenues which children are denied. Children can then begin to enter the work field, and reach their potential, however i am not talking about work fields equivalent to slave labour, we need to introduce a minimum wage to ensure that this exploitation doesn't follow forth.

So in the future i beg all the adults on here to tell their adult privilege to f*ck off !

I don't agree that feminism has failed to notice the oppression of children. Many feminists - bell hooks especially comes to mind - have discussed the patriarchal domination of children.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Depends on the society, and as I said in my post, the task at hand: if the person in question is completely incapable of carrying out such a task then it would not be an expression of privilege to suggest that a five year old cannot drive. So I think that is the line: between what one is physically and mentally capable of doing with training and where they would be without.


This could be true, but part of our social structure is putting arbitrary borders which are generally accurate, even if they are not universally accurate. There are plenty of 17 year olds who shouldn't be on the road and many 14 year olds who may well be mature enough to drive, but for practical reasons the US draws the line at 16. Age of consent laws work similarly. I can't say I'm enthusiastic about the idea of giving a bunch of people the right to make a "judgement call" about which 13 year olds are "mature" enough to make the free choice to drive on a highway or consent to sex with a 50 year old.

Another good example are mandatory tests for elderly folks who want to drive. People whose intellectual and sensory abilities are going downhill due to their advanced age are understandably more of a concern for people than 40 year olds in good health, but is requiring that octogenarians take annual driving tests a form of "ageism"?



True but diminishing the value of Ageism simply because it has not traditionally been seen as negative as racism and other reactionary social-constructs does not help matters either.I don't mean to diminish "ageism" anymore than I would be diminishing prejudice against the disabled by arguing that social categories which protect those with disabilities serve an important role. "Disabled" is a "social category" too, yet the fact that it is a "social category" does not mean that we should turn all "disabled" parking spaces into regular parking spaces. On the contrary, such spaces are critically useful for people with disabilities to live a life of choice and mobility.

I don't think ageism is a non-problem, but I think talking about ageism in an equivalent way to racism or sexism is problematic.

[Bea Arthur]

I wish you would tell my gray hair and varicose veins that age is just a construct!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This task, I believe, is reserved for the youth. While “adults” may collaborate with young people so as to help jointly build the society of the future, I do not think this is something which can be forced on young people. Just as Colored persons must determine their own liberty path and just as Queers do the same- free from the influence of individuals who have not known such fates, youth must be the ultimate judge and juror when it comes to their role in human civilization.

Isn't the whole point of 'bringing a child up', to ensure that they are safe, secure, adequately housed, fed, given social skills and given the best possible chance to succeed?

I mean, what you're basically saying is 'leave kids to their own devices because that's they're right'. It's not their right. Right aren't natural, they are won, and personally, i'd say that a 12 month old baby, a 5 year old kid, or even a 10, 11, or 12 year old kid, has done NOTHING in history to suggest that they've won some right to autonomy, or towards 'determining their own liberty path'. Seriously, that's just irresponsible. Kids are vulnerable and need nurturing. It's one thing to give children a sense of responsibility and autonomy within a secure environment - for example moving power from the government and local authorities to teachers and pupils -, but it's just abject crap to suggest that the social and cultural norms that dictate that kids need to be brought up should be done away with.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Also, for fuck sake TGU, you say 'free from the influence of individuals who have no known such fates' - everyone has been young once, we all know what it's like. And, if age is a social construct, then a 50 year old can know exactly what it's like to be young, and a 25 year old could be in the dark.

I'm only being hard on you because you're normally a decent poster, but this 'age is a social construct' thing is just pseudo-progressive bullshit at its worst.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Isn't the whole point of 'bringing a child up', to ensure that they are safe, secure, adequately housed, fed, given social skills and given the best possible chance to succeed?

I mean, what you're basically saying is 'leave kids to their own devices because that's they're right'. It's not their right. Right aren't natural, they are won, and personally, i'd say that a 12 month old baby, a 5 year old kid, or even a 10, 11, or 12 year old kid, has done NOTHING in history to suggest that they've won some right to autonomy, or towards 'determining their own liberty path'. Seriously, that's just irresponsible. Kids are vulnerable and need nurturing. It's one thing to give children a sense of responsibility and autonomy within a secure environment - for example moving power from the government and local authorities to teachers and pupils -, but it's just abject crap to suggest that the social and cultural norms that dictate that kids need to be brought up should be done away with.

Re-read what I talked about comrade, never have I said that "kids should be left to their own devices" in regards to their rearing; I talked about leaving them to their own devices when regarding liberating them from the reactionary aspects of bourgeois society, not from raising them which I clearly spelled out to be part of an alternative away from the monogamy of two-guardian households.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Also, for fuck sake TGU, you say 'free from the influence of individuals who have no known such fates' - everyone has been young once, we all know what it's like. And, if age is a social construct, then a 50 year old can know exactly what it's like to be young, and a 25 year old could be in the dark.

Perhaps "never known" was he wrong choice of words. What I meant to connote was "free from individuals who have forgotten what it is like." As to your comments about 50 and the 25 year old... yes, absolutely, these people can be allies and assist young people in the process of liberation.


I'm only being hard on you because you're normally a decent poster, but this 'age is a social construct' thing is just pseudo-progressive bullshit at its worst.How is it bourgeois? I have not seen bourgeois apologists promoting this concept too heavily (aside from the wayward youth rights activists at the NYRA). It seems to be philosophical theory to me: can social-constructs exists, to me it seems so. While it may not determine a person's identity it is how we understand the world. Age is something like race and gender identity and sexual orientation-something we made up to better understand how interaction is built. Age exists and yet doesn't exist. I am writing about the concept of age as measured in years not someone's physical appearance. This distinction is important because as people grow "older" not everyone remembers what it is like to be young and so either due to time or political motives loose their ability to relate to youth. Hence it is important to utilize this social-construct so the ills of bourgeois society might be remedied during a transitional period.


I wish you would tell my gray hair and varicose veins that age is just a construct!

Just like my "youth", the number (and social position) associated with your gray hair and varicose veins is a social construct, not your actual body. In any case it is not an insult.

[Orange Juche]

You know what bothers me? Child stars. They're often thrust into acting/music/both, and if not are certainly too young/undeveloped to decide on whether or not to engage in things that could/will bring fame (and, of course, everything that comes with fame). And it's the one area where they skirt child labor laws to such a heinous extent in the first world.

Then, when these people get older, we wonder why they're either narcissists (developmentally stunted, being told "yes" all the time), or have drug problems or what appears to be mental health issues (developmentally stunted, lived far from healthy social upbringing alongside fame and criticism). Particularly on the area of drug problems or mental health issues - these often being a direct result of being child stars - this is child abuse.

I think there could potentially be alternatives (and somehow still have children as children in fictional television and movies), I just don't know what. I know this is all kind of off topic, but it's related enough and I had to get it out.

As far as age being a social construct - the idea of wisdom or different stages of "being" due to experience through age is a social construct. Age, however, is not.