Ageism

[Spiffor]

I am curious about the whole notion of ageism.

AFAIU, it's a word derived from "sexism" or "racism". A "sexist" person makes generalizations based on gender (generally negative for the other gender), and they draw a divisive line between people according to their gender. A sexist person's opinion of people is heavily influenced by their sex: the sexist might believe that women should really be confined to be homemakers, or that men are all egoistic *******s.

It is also noticeable that an "*ist" opinion is not necessarily negative. The statements "black run fast" or "black have big dicks" are racist statements, simply on the ground that they are hasty generalizations based on race.

So, IIUC, ageism follows exactly the same logic. An ageist person makes broad-sweeping generalizations toward an age range. The ageist ajusts his opinions and expectations of people, simply because of their age. Do we agree with the definition?


If yes, my question is then: What is wrong with that?

I mean, except in exceptional cases, a child will not have the same abilities as an adult, simply because it takes time to develop a human body and mind. A geezer is likely not to be physically fit as a young adult. As such, it pretty pragmatic to hold different expectations toward people from these different age groups.

I can already hear the argument "Yeah, but blacks are different from whites, women are different from men, so by your defnition, racism and sexism are acceptable too!".
Well, actually, I think some sexual-based prejudices are as pragmatic as age-based prejudices (nothing convinced me that race itself makes a serious difference in human behaviour, though the racial stigma does). The belief that genders have their specificities that should be taken into account is actually increasingly spreading among feminists. It is for example not unreasonable to expect women to be pregnant at some point in their life, while it's stupid to expect the same from men*.

By the same token, age defines many aspects of life. Children for example lack the physical fitness they'll have later in life (save for the very odd occurence like that bodybuilding kid). They also don't know about many dangers of daily life, until properly teached. OTOH, as people grow up and acquire experience (and with them patterns of thought), they generally lose a sense of creativity. The older one gets, the more difficult it is to change one's mind.

As such, it is quite wishable to have different ways to do things, for different audiences. Education is an example of a serious issue that can be aimed at pretty much all age ranges. I think it's normal that kids are teached differently than adults, considering the kids' abilities in some aspects of education (great ability to learn a new language, for example), and disabilities in some others.

So, how exactly is ageism inherently wrong? Please enlighten the stupid



*note to Chegitz and Imran: by "expect", I don't mean "make social pressure to that effect", but I mean "anticipate". Most women are pregnant at some point or another.

[BeBMan]

Saying that there are certain diffs between certain groups is IMO not the same as making broad-sweeping generalizations. Don't know exactly the English experssion, but in German, you'd differ between "zulässigen" und "unzulässigen" Verallgemeinerungen

I mean generalizations are made all the time, but they are IMO not always equivalent to the expression of stereotypes. The thing with those "broad-sweeping generalizations" is IMO that they are often based on misinformation (or on absence of information ). If however a generalization can be made reasonably there is nothing to say against it. One should simply be aware then that it describes only a certain trend, but there could be still exceptions.

[Last Conformist]

Ageism

[molly bloom]

In the U.K. ageism in action is usually seen as an unfounded assumption that once a person has reached some arbitrary age, then they are deemed by certain people to be unfit to perform certain tasks- such as pick up a telephone, write a letter, sit at a desk, mail envelopes, use a computer, et cetera.


Usually a good way for an unscrupulous employer to dump qualified intelligent staff and get ome poor unsuspecting temp. or casual worker to do the same work for less pay and with fewer entitlements.

[Spiffor]

BeBro: Yup, that's how I see it as well.

But I think Ozzy wouldn't see eye-to-eye with this

[Shi Huangdi]

The "ists" aren't nessecarily generalizations based on whatever trait. Otherwise "Women pee sitting down instead of standing up" would be sexist, and "Black people are more resistant to sunburns" would be racist.

Rather I would believe an "ist" is someone who acts differently towards a group in an unjustified way based on their group. An example of an ageist could be a policeman who assumes that all young people are up to no good and so harrasses them upon encountering them.

[OzzyKP]

Exactly Shi.

There are certainly differences, in general, between middle-aged adults and youth, and between senior citizens and middle-aged adults, but the problem comes in when the prejudice becomes detached from the real qualities it is supposedly based on and ends up being the only true determiner of laws and social views.

Prejudice like this gives way to many hypocrisies and double standards that are unjust toward the class facing discrimination. For example society believes youth to be stupid, immature, and uninformed, thus passes a voting age to stop these young people from voting. We must first look at whether this stereotype is warranted. Many studies show that teens have the average cognative capacity and reasoning ability of adults.

Ageism has become divorced from the real traits of the subject group and now exists for its own sake. If it were an objective classification of reality, then our laws would attempt to discern the true competence of youth instead of relying on innacurate stereotypes to guide policy. Our ageist notions about youth may apply to true children, like 7 year olds, but it is absolutely preposterous to apply those exact same stereotypes to teenagers who have demonstratably the same mental abilities as adults.

Also with any ism, you have to look at the effects of it. Are there negative consequences from having the racist assumption that "Black people are more resistant to sunburns", no of course not. But when there is a litany of restrictive, repressive, and dangerous laws, policies, and social policies that apply to a group based on an ageist or racist stereotype, then that stereotype must be called into question.

Ageism, and the laws it spawns, results in depression, suicide, criminality, diminished potential, hopelessness, frustration, anger, and general acting out by teens. Before people say these are all natural traits of out of control teens, you must recognize that these traits WERE NOT common in teens before the current system of ageist policy began. And in fact these traits are common among other oppressed classes throughout history.

This natural response to oppressive laws of course simply helps to reinforce them by providing further justification for that groups negative behavior. 150 years ago, scientists would study the mental capacity of slaves and determine they are generally pretty dumb and thus suited for nothing but physical labor. They concluded that a life of freedom would be too distressing and too difficult for the slave, and they are naturally suited for, and happier in slavery because of this diminished capacity. Some of this was junk science to be sure, but some of it, we must recognize was true. Living as a slave DOES NOT prepare one to be a doctor, and it has a huge affect on one's mental abilities. If you don't use it, you loose it. Even in less severe cases, like a 50's housewife. If the woman had only known cooking and cleaning, it is quite likely that woman would have a very tough time out in the working world. Men looking at the pleas for equality from some women laughed it off, much as how people laugh off those pleas for youth.

One's true capacity can only be seen in a climate of freedom and respect. Treat someone like a slave, and they will be a slave. Treat someone like housewife, and they will be a housewife. Treat someone like a child, and they will be a child.

What is spectacular though, is that despite all these factors against youth. The burden put in place by ageism. They still scientifically prove themselves to be as rational and competent as adults. Yet ageism has overtaken reality, and supporters of our current system of ageism ignore the real traits of youth, ignore the science, and ageism becomes an end in itself.

[Spiffor]

Good point Shi

[OzzyKP]

Executive Summary

Discrimination is wrong if:
- it is unjust & unwarranted, i.e. not based in reality
- it results in oppressive laws and negative consequences
- becomes a purpose unto itself, superceeding the original explinations for the discrimination

[Spiffor]

Thanks Ozzy, that's the kind of articulate point I wanted to read

Your solution, however, doesn't look obvious to me. If I understand, it basically boils down to granting full rights and duties at a younger age (I guess 16), but you keep in mind that indeed the very young are unable to wield full rights and duties. Or did I read wrong?

[OzzyKP]

There are many possible solutions out there, all will take some effort to bring about. General principles that guide finding solutions are:

- Teens (over 13-14 or so) are generally as capable and rational as adults, thus shouldn't suffer unequal treatment.
- The current list of oppressive laws are unjust no matter who they affect, diminished capacity or no.
- A greater emphasis both in policy and in interpersonal interactions should be put on seeing youth as individuals and no pre judge them based on their class.

So perhaps a solution would look like this:

Age of majority moved down to 14, upon which full adult rights are granted, and for those 7-14 (or everyone under 14 perhaps), they have a right to petition for and choose to be emancipated and thus be granted adult rights (and responsibilities). A judge, or some other authority would decide on a case-by-case basis whether the individual petitioner is ready and mature enough to accept adult rights and responsibility.

Plus in general we start seeing youth as citizens and as people. I assume things are better in Europe, but in the US teens are often derided as out of control criminals, and face prejudice and stereotypes everywhere they turn. And I do mean everywhere.

Some laws and practices there really are no purpose to and can/should be eliminated altogether. Curfew laws for example, which make it an arrestable offense for a youth to be outside at night. This should be a family decision. Behavior modification centers, where kids are sent to and tortured should be eliminated entirely. Drinking laws need not be an outright ban, but encourage a more relaxed, European approach to youth drinking. Turning over more discretion and responsability to the family for people under the age of majority (14 or whatever) while simultaneously encouraging greater respect for youth within the family.

[Japher]

You argue that youths should have or be given more rights because of their maturity level is becoming on par with that of adults. In this I agree. However, no one is saying that the maturity level of adults is something to aspire to.

In general society tends to expect the school systems and other organizations to raise their children. If it is the state that must rear the children then they should levy rules, as would a responsible/mature parent.

Turning over more discretion and responsability to the family for people under the age of majority (14 or whatever) while simultaneously encouraging greater respect for youth within the family.

This is the largest hurdle, and one I feel is justifiable in working towards. However, many parents (especially single parents) don't want more discretion and responsibility. Perhaps in giving minors more independence earlier they will be more able to handle those things in life that come after the education is received. Maybe, if you grow up sooner you will be a better adult... Asking for such a social reform is dangerous and difficult to acheive with animosity from one side of the debate.

[OzzyKP]

Agreed completely. The maturity level of adults isn't great to begin with, and I think a reasonable case can be made that this is the fault of the increasing infantilization of youth, and the later internalization of that infantilization that lasts into adulthood. Having a greater respect for youth, and thus allowing greater responsibility will be a net benefit not only for youth, but for society as a whole, young and old.

As for the issue of bad parents, there will also be an increased ability of youth in bad situations to take care of themselves and fix things themselves. Or alternatively to leave and find guardians who are better suited for the job. Certainly not to say that a single, working mother is ill-suited for parenting, but if the kids were a little less hopelessly dependent and could help out a bit more, then it would make her job easier and their lives better at the same time.

[Caligastia]

Maturity is generally tied to age, but there are plenty of exceptions to the rule. I would be in favor of a system that rewards or penalizes based on standards that are not tied to age. For example - I would be in favor of lowering (or even removing) the voting age if permission to vote were contingent upon passing a basic civics/literacy test.

[OzzyKP]

That, I think, would be a far more reasonable, and closely tailored system of ensuring an educated eletorate than what we currently have. I would be in favor of it. Or similiar types of individually tailored ways for granting rights.

Tests of course have their own problems. They can be constructed in biased ways, or administered in biased ways, as we say with literacy tests and such for voting in the south 40 years ago.

Even assuming a quality, unbiased test, you'd run the risk of disenfranchising adults who are unable to pass it. How one feels about that brings up some fundamental questions of what the right to vote really means, and who should have it. But perhaps that could be done in another thread specifically about voting rights and the voting age.