#Ageism

[cios-correct-opinions]

i mean brain development and growth is also a factor but to a much lesser degree than experience, and also our knowledge on brains is still Super lacking too

i agree with you btw, any real differences between ages are usually super minute as is and can mostly be attributed to experience and it's almost always an excuse to enable ageism so ultimately ppl who bring it up aren't usually using it in good faith as is

so much of what people attribute to like inherent biological differences between age groups is a lot more just the result of having different amounts of life experience. is that teenager functionally brain damaged because their brain is "underdeveloped" or have they only been alive for 14 years and thus do not have the same amount of practical experience + wisdom to draw on when dealing with difficult situations.

[dragon-in-a-fez]

a big part of Killing The Cop In Your Head that even a lot of ostensibly progressive adults absolutely do not want to do is controlling the urge to judge children at every opportunity. like oh are some kids hanging out skateboarding in the No Skateboarding Zone at the park? it becomes your business if one runs over your foot. otherwise shut the fuck up. and not just outwardly, you need to tell the critical voice in your head "actually this harmless moment of someone else's everyday life has nothing to do with me and no one has asked for my opinion"

[apricotmayonaise]

"the fact that i'm at risk of seeing a 14 year old's opinion at any time of day is a human rights violation!"

i don't know man, i think the real human rights violation is the fact that teenagers are taxed from their jobs yet unable to vote (taxation without representation), the fact that we're allowed to be assaulted under the guise of 'discipline', the fact that we get paid less than adults at the same job for the same amount of hours, we're allowed to have our bathroom access limited at school, not allowed to leave So Many Situations, have faced mistreatment and oppression historically for hundreds of years, the literal existence of troubled teen camps, etc etc etc i could go on

but yeah ok sure the high schooler who disagrees with you about ship discourse is the oppressor

[inquisitivetree]

Young people can have back pain. Young people can have joint pain. Young people can require a cane to get around. Young people can have memory problems. Young people can get migraines. Young people can lose their eyesight. Young people can lose their hearing. Young people can lose their teeth and require dentures. Young people can have neurological disorders. Young people can go through menopause. Young people can have heart attacks. Young people can have strokes. Young people can go through all kinds of things you think only happens to older people and they don’t deserve to be invalidated or bullied just because you have never heard of it.

[hyperlexichypatia]

As I keep shouting into the void, pathologizers love shifting discussion about material conditions into discussion about emotional states.

I rant approximately once a week about how the brain maturity myth transmuted “Young adults are too poor to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own” into “Young adults are too emotionally and neurologically immature to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own.”

I’ve also talked about the misuse of “enabling” and “trauma” and “dopamine” .

And this is a pattern – people coin terms and concepts to describe material problems, and pathologization culture shifts them to be about problems in the brain or psyche of the person experiencing them. Now we’re talking about neurochemicals, frontal lobes, and self-esteem instead of talking about wages, wealth distribution, and civil rights. Now we can say that poor, oppressed, and exploited people are suffering from a neurological/emotional defect that makes them not know what’s best for themselves, so they don’t need or deserve rights or money.

Here are some terms that have been so horribly misused by mental health culture that we’ve almost entirely forgotten that they were originally materialist critiques.

Codependency What it originally referred to: A non-addicted person being overly “helpful” to an addicted partner or relative, often out of financial desperation. For example: Making sure your alcoholic husband gets to work in the morning (even though he’s an adult who should be responsible for himself) because if he loses his job, you’ll lose your home. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/codependency-addiction-recovery.html What it’s been distorted into: Being “clingy,” being “too emotionally needy,” wanting things like affection and quality time from a partner. A way of pathologizing people, especially young women, for wanting things like love and commitment in a romantic relationship.

Compulsory Heterosexuality What it originally referred to: In the 1980 in essay "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence," https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/493756 Adrienne Rich described compulsory heterosexuality as a set of social conditions that coerce women into heterosexual relationships and prioritize those relationships over relationships between women (both romantic and platonic). She also defines “lesbian” much more broadly than current discourse does, encompassing a wide variety of romantic and platonic relationships between women. While she does suggest that women who identify as heterosexual might be doing so out of unquestioned social norms, this is not the primary point she’s making. What it’s been distorted into: The patronizing, biphobic idea that lesbians somehow falsely believe themselves to be attracted to men. Part of the overall “Women don’t really know what they want or what’s good for them” theme of contemporary discourse.

Emotional Labor What it originally referred to: The implicit or explicit requirement that workers (especially women workers, especially workers in female-dominated “pink collar” jobs, especially tipped workers) perform emotional intimacy with customers, coworkers, and bosses above and beyond the actual job being done. Having to smile, be “friendly,” flirt, give the impression of genuine caring, politely accept harassment, etc. https://weld.la.psu.edu/what-is-emotional-labor/ What it’s been distorted into: Everything under the sun. Everything from housework (which we already had a term for), to tolerating the existence of disabled people, to just caring about friends the way friends do. The original intent of the concept was “It’s unreasonable to expect your waitress to care about your problems, because she’s not really your friend,” not “It’s unreasonable to expect your actual friends to care about your problems unless you pay them, because that’s emotional labor,” and certainly not “Disabled people shouldn’t be allowed to be visibly disabled in public, because witnessing a disabled person is emotional labor.” Anything that causes a person emotional distress, even if that emotional distress is rooted in the distress-haver’s bigotry (Many nominally progressive people who would rightfully reject the bigoted logic of “Seeing gay or interracial couples upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public” fully accept the bigoted logic of “Seeing disabled or poor people upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public”).

Battered Wife Syndrome What it originally referred to: The all-encompassing trauma and fear of escalating violence experienced by people suffering ongoing domestic abuse, sometimes resulting in the abuse victim using necessary violence in self-defense. Because domestic abuse often escalates, often to murder, this fear is entirely rational and justified. This is the reasonable, justified belief that someone who beats you, stalks you, and threatens to kill you may actually kill you.

What it’s been distorted into: Like so many of these other items, the idea that women (in this case, women who are victims of domestic violence) don’t know what’s best for themselves. I debated including this one, because “syndrome” was a wrongful framing from the beginning – a justified and rational fear of escalating violence in a situation in which escalating violence is occurring is not a “syndrome.” But the original meaning at least partially acknowledged the material conditions of escalating violence.

I’m not saying the original meanings of these terms are ones I necessarily agree with – as a cognitive liberty absolutist, I’m unsurprisingly not that enamored of either second-wave feminism or 1970s addiction discourse. And as much as I dislike what “emotional labor” has become, I accept that “Women are unfairly expected to care about other people’s feelings more than men are” is a true statement.

What I am saying is that all of these terms originally, at least partly, took material conditions into account in their usage. Subsequent usage has entirely stripped the materialist critique and fully replaced it with emotional pathologization, specifically of women. Acknowledgement that women have their choices constrained by poverty, violence, and oppression has been replaced with the idea that women don’t know what’s best for themselves and need to be coercively “helped” for their own good. Acknowledgement that working-class women experience a gender-and-class-specific form of economic exploitation has been rebranded as yet another variation of “Disabled people are burdensome for wanting to exist.”

Over and over, materialist critiques are reframed as emotional or cognitive defects of marginalized people. The next time you hear a superficially sympathetic (but actually pathologizing) argument for “Marginalized people make bad choices because…” consider stopping and asking: “Wait, who are we to assume that this person’s choices are ‘bad’? And if they are, is there something about their material conditions that constrains their options or makes the ‘bad’ choice the best available option?”

[sodomit]

Ways in which ageists talk about the youth similar to how misogynists talk about women:

- it's impossible for an adult and a "minor" to just be friends, since they have nothing in common, so there's something else going on;

- all "minors" in a public space need to be accompanied by an adult responsible for their behavior and safety;

- mixed age spaces are no fun because adults can't make sex jokes or honestly express themselves without being called out;

- a "minor" talking to an adult is a liability because they're always one wrong move away from making a sexual abuse accusation;

- "minors" ruin all fandoms they join because they police adults;

- "minors" are inherently less capable of understanding complex topics and can't be reasoned with;

- adults should take full responsibility for how "minors" in their life dress, talk, or engage with media.

If you think it makes more sense than its misogynist counterpart, think again, because misogynists think their views are founded in objective biology too.

[magnetothemagnificent]

The world is so hostile to tweens.....

Like we joke about how our schools growing up would ban the latest toy trends, but that reality genuinely horrific when you think about it. Like maybe 1% of the bans were based on safety, but the rest cited reasoning like

-"kids were bartering for collectibles" (kids learning about economics and product value)

-"kids were wearing them and the colors were too flashy" (kids experimenting with self expression and fashion)

-"kids were playing with them during lunch and recess instead of using our rusted safety hazard playground" (kids utilizing their free time to do what helps *them* unwind).

Play areas specifically geared towards children and especially towards teens are constantly being shut down. "Oh kids today are always on their phones!" Maybe because

-there are barely any arcades left and even less arcades that aren't adult-oriented,

-public pools and gyms are underfunded and shut down,

-"no loitering" laws prevent kids and teens from just hanging out,

-movie theatres only play the latest films and ticket prices are only rising,

-parks and playgrounds are either neglected or replaced with gear only directed at toddlers and unsuitable for anyone older

-genuine children's and young teen media is being phased out in favour of media directed only at very small children or older teens and adults.

-suburbs and even cities are becoming more and more hostile to pedestrians, it's just not safe for kids to walk to or ride their bikes to their friends' houses or other play destinations

Children's agency is hardly ever respected. Kids between the ages of 9-13 are either treated as babies or as full-grown adults, with no in-between. When they ask to be given more independence, they are either scoffed at or given more responsibilities than are reasonable for a child their age.

This is even evident in the fashion scene.

Clothing stores and brands like Justice and Gap are either closing or rebranding to either exclusively adult clothing or young children's clothes, with no middle ground for tweens. Tweens have to choose between clothes designed for adults that are too large and/or too mature for their age and bodies, or more clothes they feel are far too childish. For tween girls especially it's either a frilly pinafore dress with pigtails or a woman's size dress with cleavage. No wonder tween girls these days dress like they're older, it's because their other option is little girl clothes and they don't want to feel childish.

And then when tweens go to school, the books they want to read aren't available because they cover "mature" topics (read: oh no two people kissed and they weren't straight or oh no menstruation was mentioned or oh no a religion other than Christianity is depicted), so kids are left with books for way below their reading level. No wonder kids today are struggling with literacy, it's because they can't exercise and expand their reading skills with age-appropriate books. Readers need to be challenged with new words and concepts in order to grow in their skills, only letting tween read Dr. Seuss and nursery rhymes doesn't let them learn.

Discussions about substance use, reproduction, and sexuality aren't taught at an age-appropriate level in school or even by children's parents, so they either grow up ignorant and more vulnerable to abuse, or they seek out information elsewhere that is delivered in a less-than-age-appropriate manner. It shouldn't be a coin-toss between "I didn't know what sex was until I was 18 and in college" or "my first exposure to sex as a tween was through porn" or "I didn't know what sex was so I didn't know I was being sexually abused as a kid."

Tweenhood is already such a volatile and confusing time for kids, their bodies are changing and they're transitioning from elementary to middle to high school. It's hard enough for them in this stage, but it's made worse by how society devalues and fails them.

We talk about the disappearance of teenagehood, and maybe that's gonna happen in the future, but the erasure of tweenhood is happing in real time, and it's having and going to have major consequences for next generation's adults.

[petiolata]

"Friendly reminder to write characters the way I want, based on my preconceived and bizarre opinions, with a dash of ableism".

TIL if you're cunning and intelligent you can never be soft, sweet and caring too because apparently smarts and warmth are mutually exclusive.

-If you're nice or loving, you're "simpering".

-And of course a fit younger person shouldn't have joint pain 🙄 that's for old grandpas only!!!

friendly reminder that if you are going to write in the pov of alfred pennyworth, that old man's thoughts are not going to sound like your grandpa's. he's not going to be thinking "haha i love my kids, i love my grandkids, i wonder if they ate anything today... oh my joints ache, but i'll persevere anyway bc it's important i make tea and dust and whatever the fuck"

this man was a british noble before becoming a deep cover intelligence spy in special operations. he was an actor after that and only came to work for the waynes at the behest of his late father (pre-crisis). if you're writing an early-on in the butler career alfred, he should be cunning and possibly a little resentful. he should be sly and wary and intelligent. he should be attempting to hold his tongue and watchful. he should only be thinking of the waynes as employers, as as obligation. he should have had very little interaction with bruce overall because he was a butler, not a nanny, and thus oversaw the other servants of the house

if the alfred pov you're writing comes after dick grayson, alfred can be softened a little, but he should be loyal only to bruce. alfred would only be in his maybe-50s at this point. he is not some old and doting grandfather figure to dick. once again, he is merely employed by bruce wayne and takes care of dick grayson only by obligation. he should not be trusting or especially sweet. alfred should still be calculative and speculative about dick. he should be judgmental and disagreeable and sarcastic when it comes to dick. alfred does not know this child yet, he has only ever known bruce, and after 15+ years of service in a quiet house full of quiet people and strict routines, involving a 9-10 year old into the mix should have made alfred downright irritated by him

this cycle should repeat with every child that comes into the fold, especially damian (though this pov of alfred with damian is much closer to canon in fanfic and others mediums [we all know why])

alfred pennyworth is not some simpering, soft, sweet old man. he never was and really should never evolve to be one. he is a brutally intelligent, critical, and hardened man, and this should always be kept in mind when writing him. he does indeed soften to people who come into and stay in the fold, but alfred has never and would never open his arms, heart, and the wayne home to anyone ever with ease

[agnarid]

"Teens need to know how to be safe online" and "Teens shouldn't be banned from online spaces because they're the only places some of them feel safe" can and should co-exist by the way.

[crazycatsiren]

"Anti-aging"? Nah bro, I'm pro-aging. Aging is a privilege, a blessing.

[youth-rights]

When everyone seems to have a damaged, unhappy "inner child," it is time to examine and change the treatment of children on a massive scale.

[akajustmerry]

please watch @theabigailthorn's latest philosophy tube for free therapy <3

[librarycards]

this obsession with physically birthing one’s “own” biological children, to the extent that other forms of kinship are understood as anything from pathetic to outright objectionable, is really fucking creepy. beyond the bizarre fixation on offspring not as other people to care for, but physical extensions of oneself and one’s supposed “genetic identity”, there is a sinister, bioessentialist current to this obsession which marks all non- and post-biological forms of family making as deviant - a deviation from “good” and “natural” kinship.

Suffused with ethnocentrism, nationalism, and cisheteropatriarchal privilege, this model of what it means to be close to one another cheapens deliberate, autonomous care, and turns to a “family” model that casts children as debtors and parents/~elders~ as lords, whose genetic proximity imbues them with the ability to preside over “their” children even after they reach adulthood via coercion (guilt, shame) and force.

[dragon-in-a-fez]

I'm so fucking tired of listening to people carve exemptions for parental privilege out of every single principle they express. "sure it's reasonable for parents to want a say in what books their kids check out of the library, but they shouldn't be able to control what others—" NO! FUCKING NO!! THAT IS NOT REASONABLE ACTUALLY! and the kids whose parents are most invested in having that control are exactly the kids who most need to be able to access those books

[queerism1969]

[hyperlexichypatia]

If childfree people don't stop framing children's personhood -- not even children's rights or liberation, just the objective fact of their basic humanity -- as either forced parenthood or pedophilia, I'm going to walk into the ocean.

"Children are people. Children are members of society. Children are due the same basic human respect and consideration as any other members of society you might incidentally interact with while existing as a human in a society."

"OMG, you can't FORCE ME to share a society with your disgusting crotch goblins! You can't MAKE ME interact with MINORS against my WILL! Why are YOU PERSONALLY coming to my house and dropping off your screaming disgusting brat and disappearing, never to be seen again, and FORCING me to become this kid's new mother, which is a real thing I am somehow at risk of!

"And what do you mean, 'children are people'? You mean people you want to have SEX with, you pervert!? Why do you want children to be in society so bad, huh? So you can have ACCESS to them? For SEX? If I so much as GLIMPSE someone who might be under 30, I run a mile in the other direction, so there's no chance of having sex with them! Because I'm NORMAL!"