Ageism

[Vipera Magnifica]

I was rather interested to hear some opinions on this topic, but surprised to find that there had not previously been a thread for this (correct me if I'm wrong), given its prevalence in most (if not all) societies.

What are your thoughts and opinions on ageism, that is, discrimination against persons or groups of persons based on age?

Now, in the legal sense, there are many laws and regulations in place that limit the rights of certain age groups, especially youth. Laws against youth are typically designed to keep the youth safe, or protect the general public. However, such laws are based on age alone, which is not a true indicator of development or maturity. Not everyone develops at the same rate, and it is highly possible for, say, a 12-year-old to be capable of having the same responsibilities as an 18-year-old. While it would not be practical for 8-year-olds to be able to purchase and consume alcohol, one could argue against certain things like curfew laws and voting age restrictions. Do you feel as if such such discrimination is "fair"?

Older groups of people are also discriminated against, especially in the workplace. Many older people are perceived as senile or unfit to live alone, just because of their age. I've heard before many alarmingly ageist comments such as "People over X age shouldn't be allowed to drive". Such discrimination is actually quite common. While in some societies, the elderly are highly respected and set on a pedestal, in others they are treated as less than human beings. Sometimes adults will lie about their age as they become older, because attitudes about a person unfortunately change with age. In fact, calling someone "old" is usually considered an insult.

Ageism is something quite deep-rooted in many people's minds, whether they know it or not. It rather bugs me when a person's ideas are invalidated because said person is "too young to understand", etc. It is rather unfair to make such a statement and use age in such a way. Age does not equal maturity or capability. Even on TCoD, I've noticed past instances of this. There are pretty clear separations between the younger and older members. How much do you feel your ideas about another member are influenced by age? Would you be less willing to talk to another person just because they are older or younger than you?

That's all I will say for now. I would like to hear some opinions about the subject from you all.

 

[Dannichu]

The thing that springs to mind for me is that I am super, super pro lowering the voting age to 16. Or maybe even younger, but it's ludicrous that you can be old enough, in the eyes of the law, to work/pay taxes/join the army/die for your country and yet not have a say in how the country is run.

 

[I liek Squirtles]

I'm kind of guilty of that; I think little old ladies shouldn't drive cars that are almost tanks. They can barely look over the windshield.

 

[Light]

Oh god I should be doing schoolwork instead of writing non- one liners.

I think this is a problem, particularly when it comes to social nuances. Old people in particular sometimes seem to have a hard problem fitting in with older people, because the younger people are so narrowly self-absorbed. The "trendy" old person is so rare they are intriguing. I without that much forethought, I don't think there's anything better or worse about a cultural difference in admired age, so long as the culture stays inclusive.

As far as heuristics go, age is a pretty reliable one. Let's face it; heuristics are the basis for group mentalities. Racism against African Americans still exists in the U.S. because African Americans are still, on average, poorer, and poorer people on average commit more crimes. Which only leads to a sick sociological mechanism where these beliefs give these groups more friction against climbing out of their rut. As we all probably know here, much of the anti-gay sentiment stems from the expectation that these people are like the disgustingly flamboyant ones they see on TV (which, of course, some people actually emulate). The age heuristic, however, is not so easy to change, because it has basis in actual fact.

And some of it is legitimate. Elderly people, due to their age, may not work as efficiently in the work place, which from a detached perspective is a legitimate reason to hire one person instead of another. Is that "discrimination"? I'd argue it's less discriminatory than hiring someone with a high intelligence they have only by luck. This is politics, because men aren't angels.


I actually really like the idea of public policy keeping age out of the definition of maturity (for non biological purposes). A far better heuristic would be education attained. This is where my idealism shines through; this is much more complicated to implement than simply keeping tabs on date of birth, and I think many people would be opposed to it simply because of how it could be abused. I try not to get into politics, but let this example of my philosophy serve for the whole: Some people fear the development of strong AI because of the deep disasters it could create. But in my honest opinion, if we stay mindful throughout the formative stages and be conscious of how to keep that mindfulness in place, we are in complete and total control, ephemeral as that control may be.

 

[ultraviolet]

Laws against youth are typically designed to keep the youth safe, or protect the general public. However, such laws are based on age alone, which is not a true indicator of development or maturity. Not everyone develops at the same rate, and it is highly possible for, say, a 12-year-old to be capable of having the same responsibilities as an 18-year-old. While it would not be practical for 8-year-olds to be able to purchase and consume alcohol, one could argue against certain things like curfew laws and voting age restrictions. Do you feel as if such such discrimination is "fair"?

I see where you're going with this, but I really think that having age restrictions on youth is kind of the only practical way for a government to go about it. I agree that maturity isn't something exclusive to people who are older, but what kind of alternative would there be? The sort of things that are restricted by age (driving, drinking, smoking, pornography, etc.) usually don't have a lot of bearing on how mature someone is anyway - drinking and smoking are restricted for health reasons, and restrictions on porn are usually more related to that society's general attitude to pornography, not necessarily how mature someone should be to own it. But these are all fairly easy restrictions to get around anyway - you only really need to find someone who will buy these things for you. I don't think it's particularly unfair to restrict these things based on age for that reason; if something's going to have an adverse affect on your development while you're still growing, it should probably be restricted anwyay. Perhaps it's a little unfair to restrict the sale of pornography to minors, but who with an internet connection buys pornography anyway?

I'm not really sure what the metric is for driving (i imagine it might be something about operating machinery, but don't quote me on that), but driving is kind of more than just being 'mature enough'. You do kind of need a level of respectfulness, motor skills, and problem-solving to be on the road with other people driving cars, because there's a lot at risk - the worst being death for other drivers or passengers (as well as vehicle damages, property damages, fines, etc.). Nothing else i can think of is really restricted by age for that reason other than heavy machinery and stuff like that. I know that age isn't exactly the best measure for these sorts of things, but what other way could a government restrict driving? 'Maturity' isn't exactly an objective, measurable trait, which means you'd probably get a few grey areas letting some people drive and restricting others, and then you'd get people discriminated for this weird unmeasurable quality anyway. It's also not as though everybody who is of age is allowed to drive, anyway (or at least it isn't in australia, you have to take a theory test and an eye test to drive accompanied, then you take a practical test and a hazard-perception test to drive unaccompanied), so it's not really that discriminatory? I guess?

As for voting age, I do agree that it should at least be the same age as when you can legally pay taxes and go to war. That seems ridiculously hypocritical. I don't really have many feelings beyond that, but that could be because i was never particularly interested until i legally had to vote, because voting is compulsory here. I also have no real views on curfews because I... don't think we have those here? I don't know. When you're in the first six months of your provisional licence here, you can't drive after midnight (unless you're commuting for work or study), but that isn't age-based anyway.

I think possibly an important topic would be if age of sexual consent could be considered ableist, but i can't really think of any situations where you'd get in trouble for breaking that restriction unless something questionable happened, like if you were a child or if you were raped or were with someone much older than you. :/ Does anything even happen if you do and are found out?

 

[kyeugh]

Personally, I am against ageism, and I'm likely going to be attacked because I'm twelve (almost thirteen yay) and obviously I dislike it, but I'm going to vent anyway.

There are lots of things that children do not, stereotypically, understand-- love, politics, etc. This is not, in some cases, true. I am twelve, yes, but you'd be surprised. Anyone who has seen me on IRC can not say that I am not immature at times, or even frequently, but I'm twelve and oblivious like that. I cannot argue that children have not experienced the ugly things that I'm sure many adults have. However, it is not true that we can't comprehend anything that is usually associated with deep emotions or opinion. I can give you a lecture about politics and love, and I'm not going to say it like many children younger than me. Of course, it could be that my mind matured quicker than others (I'm the only seventh grade class in the state taking Algebra I), but still. Things like racism are wrong, so why is it fair to say "oh you're thirteen so you're stupid" or "oh you're thirteen so you can't feel things the way we do" No. It's just. Wrong.

 

[hopeandjoy]

Because a person's brain doesn't mature for a long, long time. I thought that I was so very mature at 12, but I wasn't really. I was mature for my age, as anyone here can tell you, but I'm way more mature just 4 years later, and I'll be way more mature than now 4 years after this.

 

[Autumn]

(I'm the only seventh grade class in the state taking Algebra I)

We live in the same state, but not the same city. I am fairly positive that I took algebra 1 in either 6th or 7th grade (because I did geometry in 8th grade and algebra 2 in 9th).

 

[kyeugh]

We live in the same state, but not the same city. I am fairly positive that I took algebra 1 in either 6th or 7th grade (because I did geometry in 8th grade and algebra 2 in 9th).

I meant for the time being.

 

[kyeugh]

Because a person's brain doesn't mature for a long, long time. I thought that I was so very mature at 12, but I wasn't really. I was mature for my age, as anyone here can tell you, but I'm way more mature just 4 years later, and I'll be way more mature than now 4 years after this.

Also: I'm not saying I'm incredibly mature, but in comparison

For example, I don't make fun of people very often and I'm past racism, which a sad amount of people my age are not

 

[Butterfree]

The way I see it, people should generally be judged on their actual relevant qualities, not on other qualities that happen to correlate with the relevant qualities. If a twelve-year-old is making an argument in a political debate, it's probably not going to be surprising if the argument is kind of naïve, but if the argument is in fact good, the fact it came from a twelve-year-old doesn't make it magically less so. It's similar to stuff like sex differences - if you're trying to find the tallest person in a group, statistics says you're best off betting it's going to be a man if you have no information, but once you've actually measured everyone in the group, that initial prediction is irrelevant and doesn't magically make the woman who turns out to tower over everyone else any shorter.

If the twelve-year-old is making a naïve argument, and specifically in such a way that it speaks of inexperience with whatever is being talked about, it might be relevant to bring up their age in the context of "You don't appear to have a lot of experience with this, which makes sense since you're only twelve." But "You're twelve, so your argument is irrelevant" is just a standard ad hominem.

 

[Minish]

It rather bugs me when a person's ideas are invalidated because said person is "too young to understand", etc. It is rather unfair to make such a statement and use age in such a way. Age does not equal maturity or capability.

But kids often are too young to understand certain things. Kids don't live by themselves, they haven't encountered many adults outside of family, lots of their mindset is going to be influenced one-way by the adults around them; they don't have to do ~adult things~,: these experiences are a pretty important division between children and not-children. When a kid has experienced lots of 'adult things' it's usually sad, not impressive.

Even on TCoD, I've noticed past instances of this. There are pretty clear separations between the younger and older members. How much do you feel your ideas about another member are influenced by age? Would you be less willing to talk to another person just because they are older or younger than you?

I would! I don't think that's 'ageist'! I feel very distanced to kids here and kids in general because a) I've been here for over six years and have to some extent grown up alongside the similarly-aged longstanding members, and b) they really are more likely to be significantly less mature?

I'm okay with talking to kids, it can be enjoyable, and particularly cool kids are great. But I mean, I've left home, all my interactions are with adults, and I've been through a lot of teenager shit. I really do feel distanced from children and I'm sure they'll cope ?_?

I agree with Butterfree in that kids shouldn't be just dismissed ahead of time, but I don't feel oppressive for keeping this stuff in mind. Children aren't just mini-adults.

 

[shy ♡]

Personally, I am against ageism, and I'm likely going to be attacked because I'm twelve (almost thirteen yay) and obviously I dislike it, but I'm going to vent anyway.

There are lots of things that children do not, stereotypically, understand-- love, politics, etc. This is not, in some cases, true. I am twelve, yes, but you'd be surprised. Anyone who has seen me on IRC can not say that I am not immature at times, or even frequently, but I'm twelve and oblivious like that. I cannot argue that children have not experienced the ugly things that I'm sure many adults have. However, it is not true that we can't comprehend anything that is usually associated with deep emotions or opinion. I can give you a lecture about politics and love, and I'm not going to say it like many children younger than me. Of course, it could be that my mind matured quicker than others (I'm the only seventh grade class in the state taking Algebra I), but still. Things like racism are wrong, so why is it fair to say "oh you're thirteen so you're stupid" or "oh you're thirteen so you can't feel things the way we do" No. It's just. Wrong.

Anyone who has seen me on IRC can not say that I am not immature at times, or even frequently, but I'm twelve and oblivious like that.

If you're going to make excuses for yourself because of your age, why shouldn't anyone else? Likewise, just because someone else might say oh you're twelve you're gonna be oblivious like that, does not mean you should use that excuse.

But kids often are too young to understand certain things. Kids don't live by themselves, they haven't encountered many adults outside of family, lots of their mindset is going to be influenced one-way by the adults around them; they don't have to do ~adult things~,: these experiences are a pretty important division between children and not-children. When a kid has experienced lots of 'adult things' it's usually sad, not impressive.

That doesn't actually matter. If you're going to have a discussion with someone, the reason behind their opinion is not what's important, only their opinion is. If you want to excuse their opinion, then the reason behind their opinion is important.

The problem with excusing their opinion because of their age is that it's patronizing, and no one likes being patronized; and the obvious fact that their opinion is still doing harm. Just because they're x age doesn't mean they get excused for having x opinion. It doesn't mean you have to yell at them or whatever, but yelling isn't necessary to being with regardless of age. If they are willing to change their opinion, great. Have a discussion. If not, I don't care what their age is, or why they have that opinion, I just don't like them.

I would! I don't think that's 'ageist'! I feel very distanced to kids here and kids in general because a) I've been here for over six years and have to some extent grown up alongside the similarly-aged longstanding members, and b) they really are more likely to be significantly less mature?

I don't disagree with you but why are you putting ageist in scare quotes??

Honestly it really bothers me and borderline triggers me when people start excusing behavior because of age, which happens a lot here/on #tcod. It's great if you want to explain why someone is a certain way but seriously it does not make their behaviour okay on any level.

A kid is an entire person, treat them like they have entire views. If they're ignorant or misinformed you can educate them like you would an older person who is ignorant it misinformed, or you can choose not to. Whatever.

 

[Minish]

pathos you make some good points! I don't really much feel like excusing behaviour - it can be understandable while still remaining bad.

I should try to remember school, though: I don't much like the 'kids will be kids' argument I've often been presented with by adults. :/ Some kids were absolutely horrible and abusive to me, some were perfectly decent people. Those horrible ones, probably going to continue into horrible adulthood. Even though there really is a stage most kids go through of being weird and jerkish, some adults are just weird and jerkish for life. idk. The thing is though, adults are a lot more likely than kids to have had varied experiences with a variety of different people and I still feel like that's pretty important...

But I didn't mean to use scare quotes! It's that I don't think what I do can be called "ageist" - as said by VM.

 

[shy ♡]

pathos you make some good points! I don't really much feel like excusing behaviour - it can be understandable while still remaining bad.

I should try to remember school, though: I don't much like the 'kids will be kids' argument I've often been presented with by adults. :/ Some kids were absolutely horrible and abusive to me, some were perfectly decent people. Those horrible ones, probably going to continue into horrible adulthood. Even though there really is a stage most kids go through of being weird and jerkish, some adults are just weird and jerkish for life. idk. The thing is though, adults are a lot more likely than kids to have had varied experiences with a variety of different people and I still feel like that's pretty important...

But I didn't mean to use scare quotes! It's that I don't think what I do can be called "ageist" - as said by VM.

You never know, they might change! But the thing is it isn't relevant to the conversation/discussion/whatever you're having with them at hand. Like if you're discussing sexism? It doesn't matter if they will change in the future when they're 20 or something, it matters if they'll stop now. If they change in the future, that's great, I won't hold their past behavior against them. But I'll hold what they're doing now against them now.

Like what you said - adults always use that 'kids will be kids' argument and I get so furious because they excuse behavior like extreme bullying/abuse, as if by excusing it it will magically change over time. Likewise this excusing behavior goes the other way - if you have actual opinions, adults don't listen, and if you say things that are happening to you (abuse, neglect), adults don't listen.

(anecdote time) I always had really strong opinions my entire life and hated that people wouldn't listen to me because of my age, or would say when I grow up I'll 'learn' or 'change' or something. Maybe I would, who fucking cares?? Can't you just deal with the person in front of you now? (anecdote over !!!! eh)

 

[Vipera Magnifica]

But kids often are too young to understand certain things. Kids don't live by themselves, they haven't encountered many adults outside of family, lots of their mindset is going to be influenced one-way by the adults around them; they don't have to do ~adult things~,: these experiences are a pretty important division between children and not-children. When a kid has experienced lots of 'adult things' it's usually sad, not impressive.

Age shouldn't be a point of relevance in a debate though. While younger people may still be forming their views, you shouldn't consider their thoughts as inferior "just because they are X age" as a) it is dismissive of the fact that they have said something you disagree with and b) it is very patronizing to the younger people who do have the knowledge and experience to make a fully-formed argument.

I certainly don't disagree that most younger people don't have as much experience as adults, but this does not mean that you should make generalizations. There are 12-year-olds who have fought in wars, been married, and gone through very "adult" experiences.

It might seem I am being a bit obsessive here, but it really bothers me when an older person tells me that my opinion is inferior because I am 19, so I'd imagine such ad hominem remarks are no less patronizing to younger people.

Because a person's brain doesn't mature for a long, long time. I thought that I was so very mature at 12, but I wasn't really. I was mature for my age, as anyone here can tell you, but I'm way more mature just 4 years later, and I'll be way more mature than now 4 years after this.

Please don't make generalizations about brain development either. The ableist implications in such statements are rather unsettling. Like pathos said, you should treat a person as an entire person, with entire views.

 

[Tarvos]

Age shouldn't be a point of relevance in a debate though. While younger people may still be forming their views, you shouldn't consider their thoughts as inferior "just because they are X age" as a) it is dismissive of the fact that they have said something you disagree with and b) it is very patronizing to the younger people who do have the knowledge and experience to make a fully-formed argument.

Age is not a factor in determining the relevance and validity of an argument, this is 100% true. The bit where age jumps in is people's ability to make a relevant and valid argument, and that's a skill that most people only develop later in life (and some don't at all). To make the comment to a child of 12 years old in their face directly is patronising, but the statistics are against you, and the statistics don't account for all cases (statistics are lies, or damned lies) but there are way more children at age 12 who cannot make a relevant argument, especially on complicated political topics. They don't have the experience and the oversight at such a young age to be taken into account in such a discussion, even if some individual cases are wise beyond their years and CAN hold their own in an argument. That's not an iron-clad rule, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb. Furthermore, a child of 12 or of 15 can think they make a relevant and solid argument, and claim to stand in their right, but still be completely bloody wrong.

The argument is not wrong because people are young, but because the argument is poorly constructed, and you simply can't expect too much at that age. If they're making a full-blown argument that works, kudos to them; I start to expect critical thinking to develop during 12-18. Once you're able to go to university or higher education is when you really should be able to form solid arguments in writing and speech. Everything before is just practice. When exactly that happens depends on the person and their individual development, but I think asking for a 12-year-old to have fully developed opinions on abortion and healthcare policy is just going to be rare in any case. I wouldn't expect too much.

I certainly don't disagree that most younger people don't have as much experience as adults, but this does not mean that you should make generalizations. There are 12-year-olds who have fought in wars, been married, and gone through very "adult" experiences.

Yeah, and we all know those children weren't ready for it. They may have had that experience, and they will be able to talk from it, but in an ideal case they should never have been put in that situation. And the fact that they have had those experience still doesn't mean they can draw inherently good conclusions.

It might seem I am being a bit obsessive here, but it really bothers me when an older person tells me that my opinion is inferior because I am 19, so I'd imagine such ad hominem remarks are no less patronizing to younger people.

Yeah but that's not what you tell the kiddo. That is rude, but what you should do is gently point out why that argument is flawed and whether they have considered experiences x, y and z. If they're young and naïve, that is how you develop their exposure and their ability to think critically.

Tl;dr I agree with Butterfree

 

[Dannichu]

Refusing to take someone's experiences seriously because they're a kid is a kind of scummy thing to do. From what I've seen of Social Justicing, the cardinal rule seems to be 'don't inflict your privileged experiences on people - listen to what they have to say', and yet everyone does it to kids. Like Pathos said, if society respected what younger people had to say, things like bullying and abuse would be taken a lot more seriously.

 

[Minish]

The privileged experience of being older? o_o I'm not sure I understand! People should listen to kids about their own issues, obviously - it's when kids start speaking about experiences they haven't really had that I tend to find easier to dismiss! So if Social Justicing has rules, this largely sticks to it!

 

[Dannichu]

I'd argue that being able to make your own decisions was a privilege.

I get that you think that kids should be listened to when they try and talk about things happening to them, but not everyone does. Pretty much everyone I've ever talked to about being bullied as a child has said that adults would just talk to them about their childhood experiences, rather than actually listen to what they were saying. I spent last summer talking to dyslexic people* and a depressing number of them talked about how their parents, carers and teachers would tell them that they were stupid and lazy, rather than talk to them about how they were feeling in relation to schoolwork, so many didn't discover they had learning difficulties until sixth form and beyond. When a child's trying to learn with words and numbers but things don't make sense to them, they can either be talked to and treated like their experience is important and create learning tools that work for them, or be told that they're just not trying hard enough. A hugely disproportionate number of children expelled from school have learning disabilities/difficulties, but are often not diagnosed so they can't get the support they need.

*for my MA, it's not a peculiar hobby