Ageism

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Define reasonable. Could they survive? Most probably could; the link I provided shows that they can. Could the average teen act in a manner that would be the same as a reasonable adult? I see no evidence of that whatsoever. What in your life experience makes you think that the average 14 year old could?

I know of studies that show around adult levels of reasoning click around 12-14. And based on my life experience, despite the fact that none of my friends were the sharpest tools in the shed, they, and every other teen I know could have been as fully functioning and competent as the average adult if given the opportunity (and a chance to acclimate). My friends who were dumb and incompetent at 14 are no better, and indeed worse now that they are adults. My friends responsibly managing their adult lives today have not changed greatly since 14 beyond factors of experience.

Originally posted by Wycoff
All this shows is that children had to take on adult responsibilities in pre-industrial and early industrial socieites; it does not show that they were ready for them. If children were ready for such responsibilites, and handled them as well as any average adult, then why have all of the modern societies imposed laws protecting children,( child labor laws being foremost amongst them)? It's not like those laws always existed, as you point out. The fact that they were adopted speaks to the need to protect children in our modern societies from expoitation. Were children able to handle things as well as adults? No. They were forced to work by their families and forced to do dangerous jobs, until the legislatures decided that something had to be done to protect them.

In fact women were forced to do dangerous jobs as well. Why are you not clamoring for laws protecting women by removing them from the work force? A very large and driving factor behind child labor laws was adult male unskilled-laborers were loosing jobs to kids who were cheaper to pay. Labor unions strongly supported the child labor laws, and it was not out of a sense of compassion.

Furthermore the conditions that kids worked in 100 years ago were dangerous for ALL people. Adults as well as children were exploited by unscrupulous business owners and made to work in dangerous conditions for long hours and little pay. If the concern is with labor standards, then we should have just raised them for all workers, and we did. But yet critics support child labor laws by flaming a fear of dangerous working conditions and long hours that haven't been seen for decades.

Stop thinking coal mines and textile mills, and think stuffing envelopes and serving fries. In fact all child labor laws do is drive many young people who want to actually experience the real world and do something constructive with their time, to volunteer in massive numbers. Not that I want to stop them, or anyone from volunteering, but what you are in-effect advocating is children should work for free via volunteering, but we should have laws preventing them from getting paid for that same work. Because these types of jobs are what youth would do, on a part-time basis, if given the opportunity. You would rather use their labor for free than compensate them for it.

Who again is advocating exploitation?

Originally posted by Wycoff
What is the need for this option? Why should 14 and unders be emancipated? What is the need? So you can live on your own? Why? If the minor is being abused, social services can intervene. If not, why does the minor need to live on their own (if that's what you're advocating)?

While you so casually dismiss (and in many places quite absurdly) my list of restrictions on youth, they are indeed very important factors limiting the personal health, growth, intellectual development, and happiness of youth. Why do you think suicide rates are so high among teens? Because they have been infantalized and are so frustrated by it all. Maybe we could save some of these lives if we changed our system.

And social services are crappy. I don't have the stat right at hand, but a large percentage of youth get abused just as much AFTER they enter the social services system. Its not just about living on one's own either. An emancipated minor could choose other family members to live with who will provide a much better environment. The kids know these things MUCH better than CPS or any outside observer could.

Originally posted by Wycoff
BTW, I take the fact that many 18 year olds still have to live at home to survive as more of an example that 18 is too young of an age of majority rather than as proof that the age of majority should be lowered. How does that possibly support your argument, that 14 year olds, if given freedom, would be resopnsible, independent adults if a significant number of 18 year olds can't live on their own?

Its not that they can't, they choose not to. That builds my argument in two ways. One it addresses your ridiculous point that if emancipated youth would all live in boxes under a bridge. Secondly it shows the damage done by our infantilization of teens. Society at all levels bombards them with the idea that they are immature, irresponsible, and cannot be trusted to make decisions on their own. That gets internalized and doesn't go away with a simple 18th birthday party. Plus the period of acclimation to responsibility and adult living that typically occured in one's teenage years is sifting away, and people are being treated like children with little opportunity to learn resposibility until their 18th birthday, or until the end of college. Then they spend the next few years figuring it all out - a decade late. See this article for a discussion of that: http://www.oneandfour.org/archives/2...p_were_tr.html

Originally posted by Wycoff
Again, what is the need? This creates an incredibly hazy standard. What do you need to determine whether a 12 year old is capable of being emancipated? What are the repurcussions of his emancipation? This is what I envision: Our clogged court system being further burdened by kids who, after arguing with their parents, want to go to the court house to "show their parents how grown up I am." The legal system then has the burden of setting up criteria for what exact qualities make a 12 year old as capable as an adult, setting standards to ensure that no incompetent minor gets emancipated, change the application of minor laws in both the Criminal and Civil arenas, figure out what do to about children petitioning for majority that can't afford independent legal assistance, etc.

Ah yes, burdening the courts, just like having Divorce Courts. What a terrible burden and drain on our system. Women should just stick it out, how dare they bother us with their demands for an ability to leave their husband. Whiners.

Originally posted by Wycoff
If you're complaining about overbearing parents, what will emancipation do for the kids? You're saying that these kids will still live at home (that's what you're alluding to with your 18 year old reference, I take it). Do you think the fact that these "emancipated" kids won't still have to listen to their parents if they still live in their parent's home? If so, then you're awfully mistaken as to how that goes. An 18 year old must still abide by his parents if he lives in their house. If he doesn't his parents can legally evict him. If the bratty 14 year old gets emancipated and thinks that he doesn't have to listen to his overbearing parents, his parents could legally throw him out of the house. That'll give the kid the ultimate freedom, as shown by that link I posted.

I see things much differently. In a world where young people aren't regarded as property, but seen as equal individuals with their own reasonable needs, wants, and desires that are to be respected and not silenced or ignored then the family relationship would be one far more loving, understanding, and based on compromise and discussion. "My way or the highway" would not be an acceptable parenting method any more than a way for spouses to relate to each other. When a husband and wife fight, the husband doesn't say "Well I pay the bills, so as long as you live under MY roof you obey MY rules" though he'd have just as much reason to, as to say that to his kids. No, the couple discuss things and work them out. Provided they have a healthy, normal relationship of course. Why is it so frightening to see something similar between kids and parents?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Wycoff
There are at least two problems with this line of argumentation. First of all gender, race, and orientation are, for all intents and purposes, permanent classes. If these people are deprived of these rights, they never receive them. They're never represented. Being a Minor is not a permanent class. Every minor who survives to the age of 18/21 receives these rights. They are all given the chance to be heard, and under protection of their parents in the meantime. These rights are only withheld for a certain time, afterwhich all rights are bestowed.

The needs and concerns of youth as a class are different than the needs and concerns of adults as a class. Talking specifically regarding the voting age, adults cannot represent youth adaquetely. As the West Wing program so clearly demonstrated (all using NYRA material), issues like the deficit, social security, the environment and others are issues being decided BY adults FOR adults, and the important stakeholders - youth - are totally victimized by the process. Not to say there aren't a few adult voters out there who think of other's interest, but the nature of the system is by definition confrontational and self-serving. The only group who can protect youth's interest at the ballot box are young people themselves.

As mentioned in the show, poverty levels of youth are higher than all other age groupings, yet society spends 10 times as much resources per poor senior than per poor child. If young people could vote, that'd be different.

We can't just write off kids and tell them to wait. What happens to children affects them their entire lives. Poor environments affecting kids gives permanent health problems, poverty creates a more difficult path to a financially stable adult life, poor education has the same effect, and many more issues. You are only young once, but the effects of that time last forever. This is not a trivial couple of years.

Originally posted by Wycoff
The second reason is the factor of maturity. These rights aren't arbitrarily withheld from Minors. They're withheld because history has proven that they need to be withheld for public afety and the interests of society as a whole. Kids are given the opportunity to grow, to learn to better appreciate who they are and what they must do before having the benefits and burdens of adulthood thrust upon them. The earlier these freedoms are given, the fewer people there will be who can prudently handle them. The result would be more problems in society and more resources wasted to fix those problems.

If maturity is the issue, then make that the only determining factor. Age is merely a secondary factor and not directly tied to maturity.

Originally posted by Wycoff
Are you referring to the average High School as a Gulag School? If so, that's the most outrageous thing that I have ever read on the internet.

I have no love for the average high school, but they are a far cry from the torture camps many youth are sent to that I call Gulag Schools. Google it.

Originally posted by Wycoff
Maybe youth are "forced" to have someone else's views for a time during childhood; that's the inevitable result of being raised by a parent who has opinions. Children tend to adopt their parents views at least for a part of their childhood, and that's inevitable as long as there are parents raising children. Nothing prevents those children from thinking or speaking for themselves once they get older. There is no substance to this complaint.

Since other civil rights movements have had more time to explore this issue in the public debate, I shall frame it in their terms, as it may make more sense to you. What about gay youth whose parents "force" heterosexuality upon them? Should they be free from this emortional and physical abuse and control? Or should the just stick it out till they turn 18?

How is this different than parents who force political or religious beliefs on someone?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


really - i know at least one dad (he actually has custody, but his loony wife keeps dragging him into court and hes close to gone bankrupt trying to keep it) who would dispute that.

GE - if a kid is 16, and she leaves the custodial parent and goes to live with the non-custodial parent, the non-custodial parent can be arrested for kidnapping, IIUC. Thats why folks in that position typically run across statelines, at great inconvenience, to live where they DO have custody. If 16 year old were treated as adults who could choose who they could live with, that would change a LOT of custody situations.

exactly.

[Last Conformist]

Ozzy wrote:
And based on my life experience, despite the fact that none of my friends were the sharpest tools in the shed, they, and every other teen I know could have been as fully functioning and competent as the average adult if given the opportunity (and a chance to acclimate). My friends who were dumb and incompetent at 14 are no better, and indeed worse now that they are adults. My friends responsibly managing their adult lives today have not changed greatly since 14 beyond factors of experience.

For what anecdotal evidence is worth, that's not true of me, nor of anyone I knew as a 14-year-old and have known as an adult.

I see things much differently. In a world where young people aren't regarded as property, but seen as equal individuals with their own reasonable needs, wants, and desires that are to be respected and not silenced or ignored then the family relationship would be one far more loving, understanding, and based on compromise and discussion.

IME, young people aren't regarded as property, and while not seen as fully equal, they're seen as having reasonable needs, wants and desires. They also typically have alot of unreasonable wants and desires, that are the source of much conflict.

Incidentally, if teens living with their parents should be treated as adults, that applies that they should be in my power much like any other people I allow to live under my roof. It's certainly not an argument against me setting the rules.

[OzzyKP]

Would you set the rules for your wife? Assuming she stays at home and you pay all the bills? Or if an uncle or elderly parent came to stay with you?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Would you set the rules for your wife? Assuming she stays at home and you pay all the bills?

If I were the sort of person to have a stay-at-home wife (as a permanent thing; not just staying home half a year with Baby Conformist), I suppose I would.

Or if an uncle or elderly parent came to stay with you?

Yes. Heck, my parents do when I visit them.

[OzzyKP]

heh, alright. Well at least you are consistent.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
My friends who were dumb and incompetent at 14 are no better, and indeed worse now that they are adults. My friends responsibly managing their adult lives today have not changed greatly since 14 beyond factors of experience.

... or maybe you have grown along with your friends, obscuring your perspective on their growth as well as your own. You don't realize that you've matured over the years.

We're never going to see eye to eye on this one. People don't stop maturing at 14.

Stop thinking coal mines and textile mills, and think stuffing envelopes and serving fries. In fact all child labor laws do is drive many young people who want to actually experience the real world and do something constructive with their time, to volunteer in massive numbers. Not that I want to stop them, or anyone from volunteering, but what you are in-effect advocating is children should work for free via volunteering, but we should have laws preventing them from getting paid for that same work. Because these types of jobs are what youth would do, on a part-time basis, if given the opportunity. You would rather use their labor for free than compensate them for it.

Many problems with this one. First of all, kids can already work part-time jobs. All you need to get is a work permit; you can get one at 14 in MD. http://www.dllr.state.md.us/labor/empm.html

I have no problems with kids holding down part time serivce like jobs; in fact, I support it. Its an important step in the process of maturity, which is why the state already allows it. I worked as a dishwasher when I was 15.

You're denying the implications of your argument. Your system, if implemented, would allow minors to take 40 hour a week jobs. It would allow them to work in professions such as construction, and you'd probably want to have laws enacted to prevent emancipated youths from being excluded from occupations. Thus, you'd have 14 year olds in coal mines and construction sites.

You're also being disingenuous when you refer to child labor history. Yes, those concerns you listed were important. However, child protection was one of the primary goals. Legislators were horrified at the conditions in which young children were working. Children often had the most dangerous jobs in the factory, as their small hands allowed them easier access to moving parts, parts which often maimed and killed them. Child laws were some of the first labor laws passed, and child welfare and protection were major justifications behind such laws.

Why do you think suicide rates are so high among teens? Because they have been infantalized and are so frustrated by it all. Maybe we could save some of these lives if we changed our system.

No, I think its because teens are immature. Their immature reasoning allows them to blow small things out of proportion. Many don't have the perspective to see that their problems aren't that bad, and are reckless and rash enough to end their lives because they got teased at school or something. Older people with more perspective would realize that those problems are problems that eventually won't matter.

Also, there are some mental illnesses that don't manifest themselves until the teenage years. (Schizophrenia, for instance) Youths afflicted with these disorders may not be able to cope with their initial onset and kill themselves, because they don't know how to deal with their disorder. Most of them probably don't even realize they have a disorder.

You just assume that "infantalization" causes suicide because that argument helps your cause.

And social services are crappy. I don't have the stat right at hand, but a large percentage of youth get abused just as much AFTER they enter the social services system. Its not just about living on one's own either. An emancipated minor could choose other family members to live with who will provide a much better environment. The kids know these things MUCH better than CPS or any outside observer could.

Social Services aren't perfect, but neither is the judgement of teens. The teen may chose a good foster parent, or he may chose the "coolest" parent that allows him to drink, do drugs, skip school, or he may choose to live with an adult pedophile who professes his love to the teen, or he may join with a cult/ charismatic figure that has persuaded the teen to listen to him.

I think that a minor should have some say as to who he gets to stay with, and I think that a 16 year old should be able to chose his guardian in a custody dispute, but I don't think that you're extremist solutions are necessary to solve this problem.

Society at all levels bombards them with the idea that they are immature, irresponsible, and cannot be trusted to make decisions on their own. That gets internalized and doesn't go away with a simple 18th birthday party. Plus the period of acclimation to responsibility and adult living that typically occured in one's teenage years is sifting away, and people are being treated like children with little opportunity to learn resposibility until their 18th birthday, or until the end of college.

The teenage years are already the time to mature. Most parents give their kids more and more responsibility as they get older. The state also does this, by allowing children to work with work permits at 14/15 and drive at 16. Again, your extremism is unnecessary.

Another problem that I have with this argument is that it already assumes the conclusion that many 18 year olds live at home because they've been infantalized. I think that you're overlooking important economic factors. 50 years ago, when the US was an industrial nation, 18 year olds could graduate and get a factory job, a job that paid a good wage and provided them with benefits. It was easy to find a way to provide for yourself with only a highschool degree with the pay and benefits earned from a manufacturing job. Therefore, there wasn't as much incentive to go to college; most 18 year olds went right into the work force.

The economic system has changed. Now, high school graduate are almost required to go on to some type of higher education to be able to find a decent job. It's hard to depend on the High School diploma anymore. College students can't afford to support themselves, and thus are still largely dependent on their parents. Those who don't go on to higher education have a hard time fining a good enough job to be able to support themselves, and many have to live with their parents out of economic necessity. In the end, this does stretch out childhood in a way. Emancipating younger minors would not change a thing, as this is a function of economics, not of "infantalizing." Again, you're just making an unwarranted assumption.

Ah yes, burdening the courts, just like having Divorce Courts. What a terrible burden and drain on our system. Women should just stick it out, how dare they bother us with their demands for an ability to leave their husband. Whiners.

This shows me that you don't understand the legal system very well. We're not talking about a quickie, no fault divorce here. Your system would be much more burdensome and expensive.

First of all, every child would need a full out hearing. The child would have to convince a judge that he could meet certain evaluative criteria before earning his emancipation. Creating the criteria would be an arduous task in and of itself, and would likely take years of debate and scientific study before a legislature or court could ever hope to create some reasonable, workable criteria.

After criteria have been made, the child will have to convince the jusge that he meets the criteria and deserves to be emancipated. This would be difficult to do, and would certainly necessitate hiring a lawyer or some kind of professional to investigate his life and help put a case together for the child. This would be expensive. Who would pay for it? The obvious answer would be the child's parents, but that only works if the parents assent to the process.

As requiring parental assent before emancipation would be counter productive in your fight against oppression, I assume that you wouldn't have that as a requirement. How then would an unemancipated child pay for their emancipation proceedings? Lawyers aren't cheap, but it wouldn't be fair to allow only those children who could afford to be emancipated be emancipated. You would have to find a way to pay for the hearings, a way that would be enforceable even if the child is ultimately judged incompetent. That rules out putting a lein on the child's future earnings. In the end, the process would almost certainly have to be a public service, paid for by the taxpayers.

Furthermore, how would you be able to find a way to limit the number of children who seek emancipation? Since it couldn't require parental consent, the courts would have to answer the child's request. It would be impossible to determine which requests are frivilous and which are not; afterall, that's what the hearings are designed to find out. I bet that most children who request hearings would be doing it against their parent's wishes, and probably wouldn't be able to pay for the hearings by themselfs. Therefore, the government would have to pay for more emancipation cases.

How many times could a minor petition for emancipation. What if a 10 year old who petitioned, went through the process, and was ultimately denied wants to petition again at the age of 12? It wouldn't be fair to deny him his hearing; perhaps he's matured enough to meet the criteria by now. Therefore, he has to go through the proces again, probably on the taxpayers dime.

Finally, the criteria for legal emancipation would most likely be pretty stringent, as it would be in the interest of public policy to ensure that as few undercompetent kids get emancipated as possible. Therefore, the majority of cases would be rejected, meaning that the entire process was a waste of time and resources.

Perhaps a few mature, qualified minors would gain legal emancipation from this process. However, the benefit of emancipating those few deserving minors is far outweighed by the immense expenditure of the whole process, most of which will be wasted on kids who couldn't meet the criteria anyway. When you consider that the deserving minors will eventually gain their rights anyway, it becomes obvious that the costs exponentially outweigh the benefits. Your system is completely unworkable.

I see things much differently. In a world where young people aren't regarded as property, but seen as equal individuals with their own reasonable needs, wants, and desires that are to be respected and not silenced or ignored then the family relationship would be one far more loving, understanding, and based on compromise and discussion. "My way or the highway" would not be an acceptable parenting method any more than a way for spouses to relate to each other.

You also believe that people stop maturing once they reach 14... I don't think that you have realistic assumptions about life.

When a husband and wife fight, the husband doesn't say "Well I pay the bills, so as long as you live under MY roof you obey MY rules" though he'd have just as much reason to, as to say that to his kids. No, the couple discuss things and work them out.

That's pretty sexist. In every family that I know of both the husband and the wife contribute financially to the family. Its a partnership. Besides, they most likely have concurrent estates in the property, so one party just can't just kick the other party out.

The kids get provided for. They don't have a property interest in things like the house and the family car. Once their child reached 18 he can be kicked out of the house. The legal relationship between father and son is different than that between husband and wife. Lower the age of majority and you lower the age that a child can be evicted by his parents. Couple that with the new economic situation that I described above and I bet that emancipated 14 year old with no high school diploma won't be appreciating his new found freedom that much. Hey, at least he still has his 40 hour a week job at McDonalds and doesn't have to listen to his dad anymore. Plus, he'll never have to go back to that concentration camp they call high school

I think that your postion is ridiculous. I can understand wanting to give children more say in custody suits, I can understand arguing that a 17 year old should be allowed to vote (though I'd disagree with you), but for the most part the things that you're lobbying for are irrational and would do more harm than good.

[OzzyKP]

Good job ignoring my points, putting words in my mouth, and exagerating my statements. For a second there I was thinking you wanted to have an educated discussion. I've got no reason to talk to you if you are going to behave like that.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


The needs and concerns of youth as a class are different than the needs and concerns of adults as a class. Talking specifically regarding the voting age, adults cannot represent youth adaquetely. As the West Wing program so clearly demonstrated (all using NYRA material), issues like the deficit, social security, the environment and others are issues being decided BY adults FOR adults, and the important stakeholders - youth - are totally victimized by the process.

So I, as a 22 year old, don't share those concerns? My 18 year old brother doesn't share those concerns? That's BS. We represent teenagers on those areas. When you turn voting age, you will represent the teenageers in those areas and so on.

As mentioned in the show, poverty levels of youth are higher than all other age groupings, yet society spends 10 times as much resources per poor senior than per poor child. If young people could vote, that'd be different.

No it wouldn't because: 1. voting can't change the economic structure that I've described above; 2. There are more old people than young people; and 3. Old people are more politically active and better mobilized. The AARP is one of the strongest of all lobbying groups. It'd take massive effort to override them, and frankly I don't think that teens and young adults are up to that challenge.

I have no love for the average high school, but they are a far cry from the torture camps many youth are sent to that I call Gulag Schools. Google it.

Oh. Reform school.

What about gay youth whose parents "force" heterosexuality upon them? Should they be free from this emortional and physical abuse and control? Or should the just stick it out till they turn 18?

How do they "force" heterosexuality on them? Do they physically force them to have sex with members of the opposite gender? It's reasonable to allow parents to monitor a child's dating habits; maybe if they did more of that, there'd be fewer teen pregnancies. If the parent's control crosses the line to abuse, the minor already has alternatives (like the Social Serivces system that you so despise)

How is this different than parents who force political or religious beliefs on someone?

I honestly don't think many that parents are trying to knowingly force their beliefs on their children. Parents are supposed to raise kids the best way they know how. Since the parents have a set of beliefs about the world that they think are good, its natural that they'd try to teach them to their children. You see that as oppression. I see that as natural. What else are parents supposed to do?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Good job ignoring my points, putting words in my mouth, and exagerating my statements. For a second there I was thinking you wanted to have an educated discussion. I've got no reason to talk to you if you are going to behave like that.

translation: PWNED

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Wycoff


translation: PWNED

Translation: you're a troll.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Translation: you're a troll.

I wasn't being any more offensive than the average poster, and I was giving you my opinion in good faith. You don't like that I've written things to which you don't have a good answer, so now you're getting mad at me for it. Real mature.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
For what anecdotal evidence is worth, that's not true of me, nor of anyone I knew as a 14-year-old and have known as an adult.

IME, young people aren't regarded as property, and while not seen as fully equal, they're seen as having reasonable needs, wants and desires. They also typically have alot of unreasonable wants and desires, that are the source of much conflict.

Incidentally, if teens living with their parents should be treated as adults, that applies that they should be in my power much like any other people I allow to live under my roof. It's certainly not an argument against me setting the rules.

great post, LC

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by GePap
Neither can immigrants, who are adults. Voting is NOT an immidiate right.

drink

Neither can adults between 18 and 20.

smoke, gamble

Terrible thing, right....

have sex

Not true, they can have sex, but NOT with adults, or the adult goes to prison.

control their schooling

In most states after 16 you can quit school a dn never go back.

own property

They can't own land, they can own other things, like their clothing, or their own car.

choose who to live with

Of course they can, leave home, shack out with someone willing to take you. pay cash to some unreputable landlord.

be out after dark, be out during the day

In most places this is NOT true, a smost places have no curfews. And once you are 16 or above truancy no longer applies.

sign contracts, own guns

Good

drive cars

You know this to be false-anyone over 16 can drive if they are licensed.

rent cars

No one under 25 can do that.

enter certain businesses, see certain movies, play certain video games, buy certain music, decide what clothes to wear, decide what to eat, decide when to eat it, decide when to sleep, decide who to spend time with, decide who to love, get access to public services, get equal pay for equal work, get tattoos, get piercings, get abortions, get married, make medical decisions for oneself, choose to take drugs, refuse to take drugs, get jobs, get fair treatment in court and many other things.

The rest of these are the same as above, not all true.For example, at 16 you can work in most states. TRhe "decide who to love" is patent nonsense.



This is all your own opinion, based on your own biases. Bad parents are bad parents, and kids have plenty of legal protections against real violations of their basic rights.

As for the last bit of this, the notion you are forced to believe something you don;t believe is NOT true, in so far as people are always free to believe what they want-thought perhaps not free to act on it, and that depends on the state.

Sigh, you are so off the mark with your comments I wasn't sure if I wanted to bother addressing them. But in many places you say "yea but at 18 you can, yea but at 21 you can, yea but at 16 you can.." which is totally missing my point that under 18, or 21, or 25, or 16, you CAN'T which is the reason I brought it up in the first place. I have no idea where you even came from with those points.

Ultimately though, what do you consider to be oppression? When controls on nearly every aspect of your life don't count as oppression then what would? I expect of course you aren't even attempting to make a coherant argument, and simply maintaining that since these things are done to youth, then ipso facto, they are not oppression. With that as a position no intelligent discussion is possible. Anything done to youth is excused because they are youth.

So instead I speak to the rest of you reading this who wish to consider whether any of that is oppression or not. I wonder what you consider oppression?

Is it oppression to deny marriage to homosexuals? Cause its denied to youth too.

Is it oppression to deny equal pay for equal work to women? Cause its denied to youth too.

Was it oppression to prevent blacks and women from voting? Cause it happens to youth now.

Was it oppression to deny property rights to women? Cause it happens to youth now.

Was is oppression to deny women the right of divorce? Cause it happens to youth now.

Is it oppression to be profiled by the police because of your race? Cause youth are age-profiled too.

Honestly, I think many people assume that if a group of people isn't beaten daily simply because of their race/gender/age/whatever then its not really oppression. Civil rights history really isn't told in a manner that allows people to really appreciate and understand what society was like before civil rights. We hear the worst of the worst, but glaze over the many subtle indignities and discriminations that blacks suffered that were just as much a part of their oppression as lynchings.

Other events are lionized so that they loose all meaning. Take for example the well known case of Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The "oppressive" action by the bus system was so trivial, so minor, so inconsequential a thing as choosing which seat to sit in. The buses were still taking blacks. The buses weren't charging them more. The buses weren't beating their black customers. They just required them to sit in seat A in the back instead of seat B in the front. Is that oppression?

We all recognize it to be oppression because we have been taught that. Yet when far more severe forms of oppression occur against a new minority group we haven't been taught to recognize we ignore it or shrug it off.