Children are children no more
Children, if I'm correct, are those under 18. This definition has to do with mental maturity - those who're less than 18 considered unable to think for themselves. This was fine because prior to the 21st century people under 18 were clearly immature and thus the restriction on their autonomy was justified.
The situation in the 21st century has changed dramatically. With an unprecedented access to information through media (magazines, books, tv and the interent) children of this generation are more informed than their predecessors and this trend is only going to increase.
So, I wouldn't be wrong in saying children are maturing faster nowadays. Some under-18s even have their own business ventures and outdoing even more experienced adults.
Is it time we revised our traditional 18-years boundary between childhood and adulthood? Should the age of independence for children be lowered from 18 to something less to better mirror present reality? Is it right to restrict the autonomy of a mentally mature human being? What'll be the impact of a change in policy? Perhaps we should increase the age of adulthood?
Children are children no more.
Your comments...
The situation in the 21st century has changed dramatically. With an unprecedented access to information through media (magazines, books, tv and the interent) children of this generation are more informed than their predecessors and this trend is only going to increase.
So, I wouldn't be wrong in saying children are maturing faster nowadays. Some under-18s even have their own business ventures and outdoing even more experienced adults.
Is it time we revised our traditional 18-years boundary between childhood and adulthood? Should the age of independence for children be lowered from 18 to something less to better mirror present reality? Is it right to restrict the autonomy of a mentally mature human being? What'll be the impact of a change in policy? Perhaps we should increase the age of adulthood?
Children are children no more.
Your comments...
Comments (65)
This is crucial in ascertaining that fine line between a minor consenting to a contract or sexual intercourse and their capacity to engage that may not essentially be a 'free agreement' especially if they do not have the cognition to be aware of what their actions, the consequences and a number of other factors would be should they agree. Active acquiescence is not consensual agreement and consent is not a defense in the case of sexual crimes. A person with an intellectual disability similarly does not have the capacity hence why there are guardianship laws and power of attorney etc.These laws that restrict decision-making rights to 18 are there to protect and I see nothing wrong with that, particularly in the case of contract law and sexual abuse or exploitation.
But, in my opinion, there can be another way of looking at it; by enabling a type of 'presumption of capacity' where instead of adopting the undermining paternalism that assumes automatically a minor is incapable of making decisions to instead see children as themselves having rights and responsibilities, to empower their capacity to exercise those rights. We afford this functional approach to adults, and so in the case of particular crimes that may involve minors, to allow a type of analysis of whether they understand the action (rather than through say a clinical approach) where an understanding of the consequences and the nature - cause and effect - of that action is assessed. This is termed as the functional approach to cognitive assessment of capacity. They are still legally a minor until they are 18, but afford a certainly flexibility so that should they consent to sexual intercourse at, say, aged 17 with a 20 year old who may possibly be convicted of statutory rape, can be assessed as having the capacity to make that decision.
Yes. I would set the boundary at 16 or 14. I think there is a lot of oppression by parents and society of young people in that age group, 14-18. And that's because young people are very dangerous to society. I think people should be allowed to drink and smoke from 14 for example.
There is no point living from 14 to 18 in a straightjacket, as if you weren't living in the real world anyway. People should also be allowed to work, and do so easily from 14, without tons of paperwork. In fact, work should be encouraged for this age group. There is no time to lose.
Quoting TheMadFool
It's not that they are maturing faster. They've always matured faster, society just didn't acknowledge it. For example, my thinking at 14 wasn't much different than my thinking today. Sure, it was more raw and stuff, I had different opinions, etc. but fundamentally I'm as developed as I was back then in terms of pure, raw intelligence.
Quoting TheMadFool
No.
I think I've seen several guys in their late teens or early 20s dating 14-16 year old girls over my life. So... I don't think that should count as rape if the girl consents and is okay with it. The law should be modified to take into account the fact that people above 14 can generally pretty much make decisions for themselves. In some countries, the laws already allow for this. I think in the UK one can give their consent with regards to sex if they are 16, or something similar. Can't remember for sure.
It depends on the laws of your country, but one could be charged with statutory rape - such as if the parents of the girl make a case of it - and in the case of a minor, consent is not a defense for sexual crimes. Hence, why I initiated the discussion of cognitive capacity and not consent, to ascertain whether there is a free agreement there or whether it is merely acquiescence; comparatively, can those with intellectual disabilities be allowed to pursue a sexual relationship? For instance, there was a case here where a man had sexual intercourse with an intellectually disabled adult and he was charged - despite her consent - because she demonstrably lacked the capacity to understand the consequential aspects to sexual intercourse and accepted direction and dependency. He done other terrible things to her, but ultimately the judge stated that "whilst she did not resist in any way and may have even consented in some form or another, that consent was not a real or true consent because she was not mentally capable of giving her consent."
Okay, but let's leave that to the side and discuss what the law ought to be, not what it is.
Quoting TimeLine
I think that 14-year-olds really do have sufficient cognitive capacity to consent to things. They're clearly capable to follow instructions at school, to make decisions about how to answer questions on tests, how to study, how to manage their free time, whether to play football, etc.
Quoting TimeLine
I think they should be allowed if they seek this themselves. If they can pursue a sexual relationship that seems to tell us that their intellectual disabilities are not so severe that they don't understand what they're doing.
Quoting TimeLine
How is this demonstrably shown? Lawyers have lots of tips and tricks to "demonstrate" things which are actually never really demonstrated. And most people aren't very careful with their language unless they are trained philosophers, lawyers themselves, etc. It's relatively easy for a smart lawyer to get an uneducated person whom they're prosecuting to agree to whatever they want them to agree if they're smart. It's not so easy to capture or corner a philosopher on the other hand, who is one of the most slippery of creatures.
And if someone has intellectual disabilities, they clearly have even less control over the precision of their language, etc. So it's not difficult for a smart lawyer to get them to agree to anything - or to show that they're not capable to understand consequences, etc.
Quoting TimeLine
That may be true, but I think it's speculative. Maybe it should be illegal for someone to pursue a relationship with a mentally disabled person, but not the other way around, for the mentally disabled to pursue a sexual relationship with others.
Quoting Agustino
And then:
Quoting Agustino
And:
Quoting Agustino
How can you demonstrate that they can?
The first quote that you quote me as saying refers to what lawyers can demonstrate with regards to mentally disabled people. We don't know much about mentally disabled people, but we certainly know that their handle over language isn't that great.
Quoting TimeLine
Their actions demonstrate it. I mean they solve quadratic equations at 14. Most people in history haven't been able to solve quadratic equations even at 40. These are clearly people who can follow a line of reasoning, understand consequences, and do things. They do it all the time at school, with their friends, etc. It's so obvious actually that I think it's ridiculous to think they lack cognitive capacity.
Maturing is a process and works differently for everyone, I was sexually immature well into 21-22. I was mature in finances and could function without support from my parents when I was 17 (eating healthy, cooking myself, cleaning, work, study, locking doors etc.). I had the feeling most peers, especially girls, were sexually light years ahead of me.
At the same time, research in the Netherlands showed that 75% of women who consented to sex between the ages of 16 and 18 still regret it afterwards (when asked in their mid twenties). Those ages are socially acceptable and it's even more or less expected to happen then (a bit of peer pressure). Even though kids can make rational decisions (my 2.5 year old daughter manages at times!),that doesn't make children wise or capable enough to consider all the consequences.
Children, including teenagers, are more susceptible to developing addictions as well, which is another reason not to meddle with ages of consent especially where it concerns drugs (alcohol and cigarettes included).
We know a great deal about those with intellectual disabilities, but that is the difficulty of the nature of cognitive capacity vis-a-vis the law. If the court is satisfied that the woman in that particular case has an intellectual disability - including an IQ of 36 - completed in addition to a clinical assessment that verified that she was incapable of understanding the nature of her actions and that she was dependent and relied on the direction of others, all of which was known by the defendant who - as mentioned - did a number of other atrocious acts against her, then I agree with that decision. It was rape, there was no consent because it was not freely agreed upon since she did not understand the nature of the act.
As mentioned in my original post, the clinical approach does have limitations particularly relating to parameters that determine what something like 'understanding' actually is even if this diagnostic threshold has equitable validity, but the functional approach allows us to presume that a minor or a person with an intellectual disability has capacity rather than not. I hear whispers of this at the moment in the international domain regarding the covenant of the rights of children. By assuming capacity, a person is not locked in an immovable and patriarchal process, but it would give those who may have an intellectual disability or a highly intelligent or mature minor the opportunity to verify capacity by explaining and communicating choice together with retaining information as part of their decision-making process. This may cause some foreseeable issues in the broader side of things, but when there may be a crime or a guardianship decision, taking that strict paternalistic approach is too inflexible but taking the functional is also ambiguous. The criterion to determine 'understanding' or capacity is complex that it makes it easier to encompass incapacity to a particular age and again that is dependent on where you are from, 12, 16, 18 etc.
What I may be at 14 is irrelevant but honestly I had no clue at all about sex at that age, even though I was great at a number of intellectual pursuits that made me far more intelligent than people much older then me.
I am sorry but at age 14 even though I had the cognitive capacity to understand what sex involved, there is NO way that I could have EVER understood the lifelong consequences.
So much so that at age 15, my first was 23 and I thought I was in love forever. Now I see the difference between a lady at age 15 and the male interest at 23 was not healthy and never will be.
What do you mean "immature"?
Quoting Benkei
Well, if you were mature at all those things, I really really can't see what you mean by the fact that you were immature when it came to sex, apart from things like you were laughing when you heard the word penis or something of that nature.
Quoting Benkei
I didn't say that people ought to have sex at that age, I just said that they should be allowed to decide on it.
Quoting Benkei
Nobody is wise enough to consider all consequences. That's just a fact of life. People need to deal with it though. It's part of learning.
Quoting Benkei
Right, so they need to be educated on those subjects too. But the right education involves both theory and practice.
So if I was your daughter at age 15 and you saw a 23 yr old man courting me, would you condone our relationship?
That's because you didn't direct your intelligence towards understanding it, not because you lacked the cognitive capacity to understand it.
Nobody can really understand consequences though. When I started my business, you think I understood consequences of all that I was doing? No, I was clueless about so many things. I learned along the way, and there are still many things I'm clueless about. That's just the nature of the beast. Nobody, except very very few people, are wise. The challenge in life is to learn how to make do with the little that you do have in terms of knowledge and understanding.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Well, it depends on who the 23-year-old man was, whether he obeyed what I told him and showed that he bought into my own ideal of having a large family, and wanted to marry my daughter, not just date her. I would also want him to be religious or otherwise convert to Christianity.
My ideal is to have a large family with all members being involved in the same work over time. I dislike the ideal of the nuclear family that is prevalent today, since it is destructive to the stability and strength of individuals. It actually weakens everyone, both the family, which loses the strength of the children, and the children, which lose the support and the wisdom of the family.
I did lack the capacity at that moment in time because I was dependent on others and had very little understanding of consequences. Most of us have the capacity but only when we surpass a certain age. Nevertheless, I understand you and I agree; that is why I am telling you that I support the functional approach, which can determine whether the child understands the action and the consequences of that action. There is current talks as mentioned in the international arena on children' rights and that we should stop taking that 'they are a child and therefore don't know any better' paternalism because we fail them in someway as individuals. We should learn - though ambiguous - to adopt an approach that identifies their capacity rather than simply assume them to be incapable
Sexual consent in the South was 14 in some states, then raised to 16. Some are 17, others 18. As the South began to raise its age, the North and Europe began to drop theirs.
You can join the military in the US at 18, but not drink until 21. France and Germany have younger drinking ages while the UK's is higher I believe. When I was young, you couldn't smoke until 16, now it's 18.
The point being these things are and have been in flux, typically evolving toward denying adulthood to later ages.
I disagree with the OP that kids mature faster now. A 12 year old in the 1800s probably had far more responsibility and lack of protection from the harsh realities of life than today's youth. More advanced societies require extended childhoods.
My generation was far less tended to than the current one, which is the result of it becoming more difficult to succeed today than before. An active parent can make a much bigger difference today than before, which results in children staying dependent longer. That is to say, if kids are so mature and independent, why do they stay in their parents's basement into their 20s?
What does being dependent on others (we're always dependent on others to some extent, btw) have to do with lacking cognitive capacity?
And with regards to having very little understanding of consequences... in what ways did that show? I mean if you could solve quadratic equations, follow directions at school, not put your hand in the fire, etc. it seems to me that you did understand consequences more than well enough. Could you follow the train of thought of the likes of Nietzsche, etc.? That shows to me great cognitive capacity already.
Time for a small anecdote. When I was around 13 I saw two guys indecently touching a girl around the toilet, who was telling them to stop, so I shouted at them, and when they heard they all ran away, including the girl. Naturally, after that I had an interesting story to tell, which I told other people around the school, and soon the news spread. Suddenly one day the principal came in class and picked me out of there, and said "given your actions, I don't think you should really be in our school anymore" and he took me in a room alone with himself, questioning me on what I had done. Instinctively, I knew to be as vague as possible, and give as few clear answers as possible. So he got tired of interrogating and threatening me at one point, and brought the girl and the two guys in the room. That's when I first realised what this was all about. Then they started to say - all of them, even the girl (probably cause she was embarrassed) - that I started spreading false rumours about them through the school about this and that. So I was very angry at that point, but I instinctively understood that I had to lie to escape, since there was no possibility of convincing the principle that two guys actually tried to rape the girl in school, when even the girl wasn't admitting to it. I also knew I had my youth on my side, so if I only apologised and admitted to fabricating the whole thing, even if it was true, I would be let go of. So I said that I was very stupid, that I thought it would be a funny joke, that I'm dearly sorry and will never do a similar thing in my life, basically begging everyone to forgive me. My aim was to (1) not be expelled, and (2) avoid getting the principal to contact my parents. And I succeeded. If I had chosen a different strategy, my life would probably have been very different today.
So clearly at that young age, I already had the political acumen to realistically understand my situation, and in a few minutes sketch out and execute a set of moves that allowed me to obtain my objectives. And I also understood that a little bit of humiliation was nothing compared to the other consequences -
as the Chinese say, even the great General Huan Xin had to crawl between the legs of two vagabonds. So I see evidence that quite the contrary, I was extremely cognitively capable at even 13.
Quoting TimeLine
Okay, I see.
Respect to you Agustino and may you feel secure in Karma taking care of the others.
What does one have to do with the other? If you're independent you should go live in the forest all alone to prove it, or what? :s That seems more of an ego thing than anything realistic.
If someone is mature and independent, they're not trying to prove things to anyone. As for why kids stay in their parents' home into their 20s, it may be because they don't want to pay rent, or they haven't found another place, or there really is no benefit to moving out, or they just don't have any initiative and are lazy.
Regardless of whether people live with their parents or not (there's nothing wrong living with your parents even into your 30s if the place is big enough, and your parents are okay with you coming or living with a girl home, etc.), they should make themselves useful. That means they should do the dishes, help with cleaning, contribute to paying the bills, maybe contribute to money parents need for medication, etc.
If you have a kid who lives at home with you the parent, but he's not doing any of these, and is a lazy sloth, then you do indeed have a problem. Sending him to the forest may or may not be the best way to resolve the issue. But the problem is that they are lazy and slothful, not that they're living with you.
This idea of parents pushing kids out of the home is actually extremely destructive to both themselves and the kids - it weakens the family. The parents lose the youth and strength of the kids, and the kids lose the wisdom of the parents. By weakening the family, both parents and children are more easily controlled by other forces of society.
I should also add that from my experience, it is the most immature that want to move out of their parents' home quickly, so that they can be free to do drugs if they want to, etc.
As you would expect, however, if children are going to extend their dependence economically, you will liklely see laws reflective of that reality that keep them to some extent disenfranchised.
In other words, I disagree with the OP that today's youth are earlier equipped for adulthood than yesterday's.
Yes, I do notice that, but there's no necessity for it. Part of that, seems to me, to be due to the parents. The parents encourage the child to keep being a child, usually for far too long. They do that since they generally can provide for the child for longer. That means that they're not willing to let the child hold responsibilities, and treat him or her like a child. As a result of that, the child goes on to perceive him/herself as a child.
The parents also have another "defect" in my opinion. They outsource the education of the children to society for the most part, which I believe is a great mistake. I was lucky to have managed to find myself in the right circumstances which allowed me to educate myself. Had I not educated myself through vast reading and study, I would have likely been an idiot today. My parents could have prevented that had they assumed some sort of responsibility for educating me - apart from sending me to school, teaching me manners, and checking that I had good grades. I learned precious little in school that was relevant to life actually. University was more useful though.
Quoting Hanover
Okay, but I view that as a problem. I think the child should start working as soon as possible. I don't really see any value in an extended childhood, but quite the contrary, you're delaying the time it takes someone to become an active participant in the world and its affairs. I don't understand why you'd want to do that.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, but that's precisely the problem. I think children need to be given responsibility from early on, and the family should try to integrate them in whatever the family is doing. If the father is a doctor, for example, he should take the kids with him to hospital, and start teaching them the very basics while they watch him. One of the kids may show an interest in it, in which case the father can start preparing him to be a doctor. And so on.
Quoting Hanover
They are equipped, they're just not willing to use the equipment they have. If you have a university graduate, for example, sitting in his parents' basement and smoking weed all day with his friends while playing video games, you can't really tell me that you have someone who isn't equipped. They are amply equipped, it's just that they're not willing to apply their intelligence to a profession, or to making money, or something productive. That they are intelligent and capable is amply illustrated by the fact that they completed schooling and higher education in that case. What they lack is the adequate moral education and discipline, which parents did not give them because they always treated them like a child.
The ability to make goals for oneself, and make plans to reach those goals is extremely important, and it is parents that must foster it in children. School just stuffs a bunch of information in your head and carries everyone along - but they don't make people independent, nor help them think for themselves.
Tell someone that they're so useless at making decisions that we have to actually ban them legally from doing so for the first 18 years of their life and you end up with the disaffected generation we have nowadays.
I came late to this discussion, so I don't really know how to catch up, so I'll start out laying out my general understanding.
Maturity doesn't have much to do with knowledge. Maybe nothing. It's not that children are more ignorant or less experienced than adults. Their brains are different. They're not mature because their minds have not developed cognitively to the point where they understand the consequences of their actions on themselves and others.
Family dynamics also has a big effect. In the society where I live, young people, even those who might be mature cognitively, are not given the chance to gain the experience they need to live safely on their own. You can say we should change that. Well, ok, but that's easier said than done. A lot of kids would get trampled in the transition.
Young children are vulnerable. They don't have the resources to protect themselves from the world or other people. They need to be protected. Here's the image I see when I think of this. The child lives inside a metaphorical fenced area put up by her parents. When she is a baby, the fence is very close. As she get's older, she starts to move around and eventually starts bouncing against the fence. At some point, the parents expand the fenced area to allow the child more freedom. This continues until the child is old enough to take care of itself. I recognize that this is an result of the fact that I live in an affluent society that can afford to provide that level of protection.
At what age do we draw the line between childhood and adulthood? Based on my experience in my own particular community, I'd say probably 15 or 16. Definitely not 14. That doesn't mean kids can't start to take more responsibility or have more freedom sooner, but up to whatever age we choose, the child's will is vested in the parents. When things go right, the parents and children work out a good balance of restrictions vs. responsibility.
Although it's certainly not always true, I think parents are generally more likely to protect their children and take their interests to heart than any other people or institutions I can think of. It is appropriate that our laws reflect that.
It isn't that people younger than 18 are "considered unable to think for themselves". Clearly many people younger than 18 or 17 or 16 can "think for themselves". What they can't do is assume certain "adult" responsibilities. This is a matter of legislated law, not child development. Some 45 year olds, of sound mind and normal intelligence, don't do a good job of accepting "adult" responsibilities. Some 15 year olds do.
Quoting TheMadFool
People -- all ages -- have access to vast quantities of information, some of which they did not have access even 20 years ago. However, "having access to a huge library" isn't the same as actually reading a book or a report. Picking up the book and reading it isn't the same as actually understanding the book, and being able to make use of it. It is an error to assume that this generation is more informed than their predecessors, for a couple of reasons:
What people in the mediated world of today are familiar with, know, and understand is -- as it has been for a long time -- spotty. 25% of 18 year olds today may have a high level of knowledge about media, but know very little about global warming. They may have performed well in high school mathematics classes, but know nothing about money management. They may have paid attention in class, learned grammar and punctuation, read all the required and option reading in English classes -- and not know how to fix a leaky faucet, or understand how their own body works.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes you would be.
A child's brain does not mature faster today than it did 100 or 200 or 2000 years ago. The brain doesn't finish maturing until about age 25. One of the reasons why the teen age years are characterized by often exasperating behavior is due to changes in their brains, as well as changes in their hormones.
In centuries past, children were, in a way, viewed as miniature adults. Expectations of children were considerably more stringent than the expectations of children today. For instance, a 13 year old girl might be considered old enough -- and ready -- to marry and bear children; in many cases they were married off early. This was probably an all round bad experience for the young person, but that's the way life was, and one coped.
We know more about children today than we did in the past. Yes, children often learn given blocks of material earlier than they did in the past, but that is largely because expectations among parents and teachers are higher now than it was, say... 50 years ago. Children and adults still function about the same as always, but what is deemed suitable has changed.
As note by other posters, there is a lot of variance among people in how fast various skills develop, or when traits appear. This is true now, and it was true in the past. Some 15 year olds may be ready to engage in independent sexual relationships (not chaperoned) while some 24 year olds may not be ready yet.
That's the main point I guess. We need to facilitate and protect. Generally under-18s need more of the latter. It makes senseQuoting TimeLine
It's good to give under-18s more autonomy to allow them early access to the benefits of the adult world but we also need to avoid the obvious pitfall of exploitation by unscrupulous adults. I guess we must err on the side of caution.
Quoting Agustino
I think quite the opposite. Many elements of adult society are dangerous for youth. As I said in my reply to TimeLine above the need to protect outweighs the advantages of greater autonomy at a younger age. What do you think?
Quoting Agustino
Maturity requires experience and with modern media children have access to, literally, billions of second-hand experience of others. Don't you think this affects the maturing process of minds? For instance a 12 year old in New York is definitely more mentally advanced than a 12 year old Ghanian villager.
Quoting Hanover
Mental maturity in terms of knowledge on how the world turns is possible at a younger age now than it was before. The media bombards children with information and this surely has an effect on the mind.
I agree that children in the past had ''responsibilities'' but they were of such kind that didn't affect their mental maturity. Farming and fetching water don't do anything for the mind but seeing the president give a complex point of view on TV does.
The law must have some basis and what better than biology to legislate? May be I'm being myopic in that moral ''ought'' doesn't have to match the ''is''.
That's the key issue as I said in my reply to TimeLine.
Sexual maturity may be reached sooner, or later, depending on genetic and nutritional factors.
Quoting TheMadFool
The effect of watching media is probably not as influential on mental development as some people think. Language development in young children is not enhanced by watching television or tablets. Language development is critically dependent on caregiver-child interaction. We are not wired to pick up language from screens.
Watching the president give a complex point of view on TV does not "develop" the child's thinking. Watching the president, talking with one's parents, teachers, and peers about what the president said does that.
IF you observe typical young children who seem more advanced intellectually than what you think children growing up on the farm 100 years ago were, you're probably experiencing the bias of exposure to children whose parents are more sophisticated, understand the importance of lots of positive verbal interaction with their children, and make sure it happens.
Children working with their parents on the farm can have the same kind of positive verbal interaction, increasing responsibility, and so forth as children with sophisticated, effective urban parents. AND urban and rural children can both have intellectually very retarding experiences IF their parents are insensitive clods. Sophisticated, mature 18 year olds have definitely come off the farm.
I am speaking more jurisprudentially in that there is a clear deficit of assessment models that provide an adequate parameter to delineate capacity or the lack thereof and so we take that paternalistic approach by claiming that a child has no capacity for choice (for instance, children of divorced parents where in some jurisdictions do not have any rights to exercise choice). It is really about defining assessments and in the case of divorcing parents to ascertain impeding choice so that the courts can advocate for and enable children to exercise their rights, albeit limited and on a case-by-case basis. This is the functional rather than the diagnostic approach and if each case examines each child based on whether they have the reasonable capacity to communicate and understand their choice as well as retain information as part of their decision-making process, then the state can improve their methods of protecting them since it is our responsibility to protect the vulnerable. Children who commit crimes is another key area and offering rehabilitation through a therapeutic framework is of more help to the child then simply throwing them into juvenile prison or punishing them. So, it is not necessarily autonomy of the child but rather an open mind that some children may have the capacity to make an informed choice. But yes, certainly in the case of sexual abuse, sometimes it is simply better to take that paternalistic approach to protect them from exploitation.
I don't think the elements you cite are any more dangerous to children than they are to adults.
Quoting TheMadFool
I agree. I personally found that to be the case for me. But that was also because I was always of a very ambitious, studious and self-driven nature.
Theoretically, adults are supposed to provide some guidelines that encapsulate their nous to children, so they can get a head start in thinking for themselves, but that's never really been done very well by mass education systems.
There was another case, I believe in Australia, with the same situation, but the disabled person was male and the other sexual partner female. It was my impression it was fairly well known. It was discussed from a philosophical perspective on "The Philosopher's Zone" which comes from the Australian Broadcasting Company and is available on the web. It was an interesting show.
I can say definitely that I didn't understand till much later than 14. I certainly didn't have the emotional capacity. I didn't when I became sexually active at 17 or arguably much later. I'm not trying to deflect my responsibility for my actions, just describing my state of mind.
As a student of law, you must see the possible difficulties implementing what you call a functional approach. Bureaucratic institutions are not good at putting together institutions and procedures that are effective in situations where sensitive judgment is required. Vulnerable people would get lost. There would be scandals.
Of course, the same is probably true of what you call the patriarchal approach. At least that has the benefit of being easy to understand and enforce. Of course, because this is an area where sensitive judgment is required, the laws won't be administered uniformly and fairly.
It really pisses me off how people are espousing the Convention of the Rights of Persons with a Disability with a fluffy ignorance about the very serious and difficult domain that will actually enable them to exercise those rights. Negative perceptions that persons with a disability entering into a sexual relationship is based on a misnomer about their capacity to understand what sexual intercourse is and are therefore asexual and sometimes the extremity of their intellectual disability validates this, but certainly not all. They are human beings who like everyone else have that natural instinct, only their understanding of it is different. Where is that line drawn and how can we ascertain whether they do have the capacity to understand? The functional approach in my opinion provides more scope than simply a clinical or diagnostic threshold - i.e., they have down syndrome and an IQ of 50 and so are automatically incapable of understanding - when what we can really do is simply educate them about sexual intercourse in a way that they will understand, to work at their level so they can make an informed choice by knowing that having sex may mean becoming pregnant or if unsafe potentially risking a sexually transmitted disease etc. The paternalistic attitude toward people with a disability means that we are failing them and it is our responsibility to ensure that we do our best to advocate for them as that is our responsibility and their human right. They are sexually active, it happens all the time, let us work together to ensure safety is a priority.
However, this paternalistic approach has enabled forced steralisations, for instance, of young women with a severe intellectual disability and unbelievably this is still permitted viz., guardianship laws here in Australia because they are at high risk of being sexually assaulted by the exploitation by unscrupulous adults as @TheMadFool said. This is an important example of breaching the boundary of human rights and the body (I have been vocal about my concerns for this and have used the Muir v. Alberta case as an example of that fine line between health and safety and eugenics). We define appropriate sexual behaviour in the law and in Australia consent in the Crimes Act is a 'free agreement' and therefore if international human rights law states that each person is equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law, we need to ensure that capacity assessments are adequate and they are not (international law does not suggest any adequate method to ascertain this). Again, it really shits me at how this has been given the silent treatment like so many other serious and contentious issues so the world can pretend that everything is fantastic as capitalism enables.
We have advanced in so many ways, but yes, there are a large number of caselaw examples that can be used to solidify my point, particularly relating to consent and acquiescence that is comparable to children' law and sexual crimes. We think that rape mean actively protesting and screaming 'no' but passive acquiescence and cognitive capacity is a real problem that we need to understand for both those with an intellectual disability and children alike to ensure we protect them.
You've thought a lot more about this than I have and your training and experience make you a much more credible advocate. For me it all comes down to this - vulnerable people need to be protected. Within that limit, they deserve as much chance to be happy as everyone else does. From what I can see, we don't even come close to protecting them in a consistent and effective way.
Adulthood is based on readiness, the parents wishes, and cultural expectations. Defining it in solid numbers is an invention of Western expansion.
People kept their kids longer for labor during the agricultural revolution.
I’m not sure what timeframe/culture you’re referring to as comparison to modern expectations. Will you divulge?
Good post. I assumed that we were talking about western culture now vs. western culture in the not too distant past. Maybe as recently as the 1990s. I'm not sure what period TheMadFool meant. Maybe he'll tell us.
That is called child labour. When I was very young, I was taken out of school for a number of years and forced to work because children were considered an economic asset, which is why in many cultures and communities they - despite poverty - have a large number of children. I am wholeheartedly against this concept and children aged 10-13 should be getting an education and playing before making an informed choice at a suitable age as to whether or not they would like to do an apprenticeship.
Quoting Brianna Whitney
Now, today, global, unless perhaps you can divulge in what your point is? We are talking about children and human rights and I understand the necessity within this discussion about cultural relativism and other relevant sociological dynamics, but what children did during the industrial revolution with the high number of mortality rates (and yes, statistics, how Western of me...) and other unbelievable levels of suffering hardly serves the discussion; human rights laws were created with the aim of protecting and enabling children to lead happier lives. If that is too 'western' or modern for you, then I don't know.
And is there no universality in these rights? Are you saying, for instance, that we should just accept that child marriage is normal for some cultures and any contestation is too 'modern' or 'western'?
I'm sure BW can speak for herself, but I thought she was referring to the original post where TheMadFool made a comparison between children now and those in the past, saying they mature earlier now. I'll let her clarify.
Either way, I did not agree with her discussion points.
Dear lord, no. It is precisely the reverse. Try being a substitute teacher at a public school, as I was, or talk to a teacher over the age of 50. I have no hesitation in declaring that this is the most infantilized, coddled, illiterate, and immature generation in the history of civilization. It's a running joke among academics that college is the new high school. Compare this observation to the rites of passage into adulthood that existed for most of human history when the individual was about 13 or so.
I don't understand why you would think that way.
So having a child do healthy satisfying, and rewarding outdoor work on, say, a ranch would be a bad thing, but physically imprisoning then in a school building, forcing them on pain of further imprisonment to sit down and shut up (all of which does actual medically demonstrable harm to their well-being), just so that they can be force-fed some useless crap about the Roman Empire is absolutely fine is it?
Your description of an education being "imprisoned" where people experience "medically demonstrable harm" because they sit on a chair and write, being forced to learn about useless things like history is rather interesting. Of course, forced labour to you is just rewarding outdoor activities on a ranch.
It is pretty difficult writing anything more because I am genuinely speechless.
http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2653704/patterns-sedentary-behavior-mortality-u-s-middle-aged-older-adults.
Sitting for too long causes demonstrable medical harm. Would you like me to post some of the other similar studies I have available?
In what way is imprisoned deserving of its incredulous quote marks, are you seriously suggesting the children can just get up and walk out if they want to, what other definition of imprisoned are you referring to?
Quoting TimeLine
Is it? Because you find it interesting that makes it OK to force the entire population of children to endure it?
Quoting TimeLine
Who said anything about forced labour. It school that doing the forcing, I'm talking about the child's ability to choose which is taken from them by authoritarian rules about working age and full time education. It's already illegal to force anyone to work, child or adult. It doesn't require additional draconian age restrictions.
How is that study of middle-aged related to early childhood education? I work with numerous schools and school aged children and I can assure you that they do not sit down in sedentary positions for long periods of time, on the contrary fitness and physical activity is largely incorporated in many school cultures.
Quoting Inter Alia
Are you suggesting that it is not a human right for a child to receive an education, on the contrary that it is authoritarianism to believe we are responsible for their brain development? So, by enabling accessibility to an early childhood education so as to strengthen their future capacity to make informed choices and empower reason, we are actually committing an evil? I am quite literally gobsmacked.
An education is critical for a childs brain development and when you read books to babies or toddlers, you may not think that you are actually doing much but evidence shows that it has a positive impact on their neurological and social development, where fibers grow between neurons and the white matter of the brain that forms neural networks that transmit information. An education assists in the maturation through further fibers and growth that strengthens the capacity to process information, reading, mathematics and logic as well as retaining better memory.
The study of childhood neglect in Romanian orphanages is an example of how neglect affects the brain. When a child experiences stress, the neural connections in areas of the brain that assist with learning pivotal later in life for either higher education or employment is damaged, whereby early preventive intervention such as the provision of an education will likely assist in a more successful future for the child,
An education is crucial for the development of a child' brain and while casual, outdoor activities with a pocket allowance is useful, being pulled out of school and forced into labour is not. If we have over 200 million children and young people out of school, then we not only fail our responsibility to protect and support children as they risk never developing the capacity to activate areas of the brain that will empower and enable them with the skills later in life, but we indirectly assist the continuity and proliferation of negative determinates that are characteristic of poor social, emotional and cognitive skills.
Fine here's one directly on children, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26370881, though I'm not sure why you would think one on adults wouldn't apply, they're not a different species.
Quoting TimeLine
So hour long lessons are a thing of the past are they, I'm not sure what schools you might have taught in, but the ones we have here are still pretty much hour of Maths, hour of English, hour of Science etc etc, with a few 15min breaks and one PE lesson a week. Are the children being taught their History whilst jogging across the countryside nowadays and I've just missed the revolution? Are science lessons conducted during a game of football?
Quoting TimeLine
I'd be very interested to see any evidence you have demonstrating a link between school education and an ability to reason. This study https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1022611, seems to show otherwise, or this one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4445388/ which concludes that "that extended durations of education do not have domain-general effects on ability"
Quoting TimeLine
So you're suggesting that tribal cultures are socially underdeveloped because they don't have any books? That sounds like something out of Victorian colonialism.
It is outrageous to suggest that a child who isn't in school is in any way suffering the equivalent damage as a child who is the victim of such neglect as was seen in the Romanian orphanages. Plenty of people home educate, plenty adopt 'Free to learn' approaches such as advocated by Peter Gray at Sudbury School, there are thousands of children living in tribal cultures across the world who do not have a formal education but simply adopt their parent's role's as they grow up. Are you suggesting all these cultures are neglecting children to the extent seen in the Romanian orphanages?
Quoting TimeLine
Will you please stop misrepresenting my argument, I have never said anything about forced labour. Either you accept that a child has a choice or you don't. If you are to suggest that a child is too easily influenced to exert a real choice (deeply insulting, but possible) then they are 'forced' into school just as much as 'forced' into labour should they choose to take early apprenticeships or work on their parent's farm. If you take the much more reasonable view that children are autonomous individuals capable of expressing and deciding on their own lives, then there is no need for the term 'forced' at all I'm talking about choice. At the moment a child cannot choose to work on their parent's farm or apprentice themselves to a mechanic, they are 'forced' into a particular type of education on the grounds that the adults think it's best for them, despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence that it is not.
From the Human Rights Act you seem (quite rightly) fond of;
The right to liberty and freedom: you have the right to be free and the State can only imprison you with very good reason – for example, if you are convicted of a crime. - So why is it OK to imprison a child within the school building. To punish a child with detention without trial? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4424298/Dictatorship-school-puts-pupil-ISOLATION-skinhead.html
The right to a fair trial and no punishment without law: you are innocent until proven guilty. If accused of a crime, you have the right to hear the evidence against you in a court of law. - Except of course if you're a child in which case you can be punished by pretty much anyone for pretty much anything because its all 'in your best interests'
Respect for privacy and family life and the right to marry: protects against unnecessary surveillance or intrusion into your life. You have the right to marry and enjoy family relationships. - Except for the children who are now tracked at school to monitor them https://www.wired.com/2012/09/rfid-chip-student-monitoring/
Free speech and peaceful protest: you have a right to speak freely and join with others peacefully, to express your views. - Except at school where you are forced on pain of further imprisonment to shut up and speak only when allowed. When was the last time you saw a peaceful protest being allowed at school?
No discrimination: everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly – because, for example, of your gender, race, disability, sexuality, religion or age. - I'm not even going to add anything to this one, just highlight the last word.
So what is your point?
Are you anti-education, pro-labour? The rest of your post aside from the following is not even worth responding to.
Quoting Inter Alia
Do not try to use false ad hominems on me by purporting some connection between my argument about brain development as comparable to deriding cultures. The most pivotal aspect to early childhood health is access to good family care and a non-toxic home environment, but strengthening cognitive, social and language skills is furthered by an education due to brain development as I have already shown you. The acquisition of knowledge through an education strengthens cognitive abilities and practical skills for higher-order functioning later in life and notwithstanding your ridiculous examples (you do realise what moral reasoning is?) I am not suggesting that "tribal cultures are socially underdeveloped" as you claim as they too have access to an education - whether it is religious, cultural etc - in addition to the standard compulsory early childhood education that most governments around the world endorse - whether at home or through alternate approaches, but an education still.
So, I ask you again, what is the point of your argument?
Simple - That education is not about sitting in a school room learning History and English Literature, that it can be about working at a rewarding job in a safe and nurturing environment, but that is currently illegal even if it's what a child wants. That it is a blatant denial of the child's human right by ignoring their stated wishes and instead forcing them to attend an institution, and allowing that institution to punish without trial and deny free speech just because they're children. It's not a complicated argument.
Quoting TimeLine
No you haven't shown, you stated, I've shown two studies which demonstrate no link between formal education and generalised development of brain functions such as moral reasoning or domain-general ability. You have supplied no study to support your assertion that formal education develops anything in the brain that education on a farm or at a mechanic's workshop would not.
Quoting TimeLine
Actually they don't, children in tribal culture have virtually no pedagogic education at all https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200808/children-educate-themselves-iii-the-wisdom-hunter-gatherers
They learn in exactly the way I've outlined, by being free to make their own choices, engage in adult activity when they want and on whatever terms they want. Suggesting that such an approach would constitute neglect is insulting to the thousands of tribal cultures we still have across the world.
The point of my argument is that children should have the same human rights as adults. They should be free to choose their own form of education (through work, self learning or formal pedagogic teaching), and if institutions are set up to serve those children that choose formal pedagogic teaching those institutions should have no more right to restrict a child's freedom than they would an adult's.
We look back on the way we treated other races with disgust nowadays despite how normal it seemed at the time. One day (I hope) we will look back on the way we treated children with the same incredulity. Dressing it all up with 'It's in their best interests' I'm afraid just doesn't wash.
I agree but when you previously stated:
Quoting Inter Alia
This came following my argument that children aged 10-13 should not be working as labourers but should instead be at school and playing. Do you feel that a child at that age is capable of understanding what he/she wants vis-a-vis this so-called 'rewarding job' that smells of a privilege not available to many people? Can you provide me with an example of what this rewarding job for a 10-13 year old is and whether such a job is the norm in relation to the millions of children currently working as laborers - particularly in the global south - where conditions are usually not safe neither nurturing? If you believe that a 10-13 year old has the cognitive capacity to ascertain their rights and responsibilities and articulate a free agreement, are you able to provide me with justification for this capacity?
While I agree that there is a threshold - in Australia, for instance, we offer optional or alternate studies such as Vocational Education and Training (VET) that combines effective TAFE studies and practical work placements for secondary school students who may not want to do further studies but prefer to work, but this is only when they reach the age 15.9 and with the full advice of careers counselor, school and their family. We have even established unique alternatives for school leavers and those in the juvenile justice system along with numerous options for traineeships and apprenticeships. But again, all after a certain age.
Quoting Inter Alia
A formal education is a part of a triad of requirements that strengthen early childhood brain development as the stimulation strengthens their cognitive, social and emotional capacity among others.
Yes, that is exactly what I think, the only evidence that has ever been put forward to suggest otherwise is that they make decisions they later regret, well who doesn't?
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, working on a parent's farm or in a trusted family friend's mechanic shop are just two. As are learning how to hunt and gather by taking part in adult activities in a tribe.
Quoting TimeLine
No, I cannot, I'm not sure how this is relevant. I'm making an ethical argument about what should and should not be illegal, not suggesting that working conditions for child labourers are generally fine. I don't think the working conditions for adult labourers are generally fine either, what's that got to do with a child's right to choose?
With regards to your evidence, I appreciate the links. We could exchange studies all day, I don't think the studies you've cited show what you think they show. None have any proper control group. They're showing the effect of education on brain development but not demonstrating that such an effect would be absent (or perhaps even larger) from vocational training at a young age. Nor could they ever, as no such control group would be considered ethical (i obviously disagree).
So firstly there are a few studies that actually have some kind of control. The first one I cited used a measure of cognitive ability unrelated to the subject matter. Another by Benezet (I don't have the link to hand) removed formal maths education from young children. It concluded "At the beginning of their sixth grade year, the children in the experimental classes, who had not been taught any arithmetic, performed much better than those in the traditional classes on story problems that could be solved by common sense and a general understanding of numbers and measurement. Of course, at the beginning of sixth grade, those in the experimental classes performed worse on the standard school arithmetic tests, where the problems were set up in the usual school manner and could be solved simply by applying the rote-learned algorithms. But by the end of sixth grade those in the experimental classes had completely caught up on this and were still way ahead of the others on story problems."
There are studies carried out by Sugata Mitra in Indiahere, which show pretty clearly how much more quickly computer knowledge was obtained just by leaving the kids with a computer than hours of IT classes could ever do.
I've got masses more if you're interested, but I don't want to completely hijack the thread with a 'Free to Learn' pitch. The ethical point is that formal education is incredibly restrictive of a child's human rights so it would need to have an extremely solid and exhaustive evidence-base to justify forcing children into it against their will, and it just doesn't. No matter what you believe, the evidence is at the very least 'contested', and that's just not good enough to justify the harm done to autonomy.
It didn't start out that way, that's just the way it has evolved. It started out talking about how children are more mature now than they were in the past because of changes in information technology.
Ha. *now* I’ll quote.
May be our brains aren't developing faster but our minds are. With widespread media children have access to vast numbers of experience, a key necessity for maturity, and that, I feel, is accelerating mental maturity. From a negative perspective children also need to grow up faster if they're to avoid exploitation by adults.
Quoting Bitter Crank
A good point but you can't deny that the average person today is more sophisticated than, say, in the 1900s and this trickles down to children.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, it's not an open-and-shut case. The problem is complex and the law isn't as sophisticated as is necessary to handle it. One could even say that jurisprudence is flawed - always looking for the universal when we know that each case is unique enough to deserve special legal considerations.
Yes, children need nous but the only way to acquire it is through experience and in the modern world experience can be acquired second-hand through the media.
Quoting Brianna Whitney
Take America 1800s or 1900s and now 2000s. A lonely farm, some animals, a stray book compared to an urban setting with TV and broadband.
Quoting TheMadFool
The expansion of the tech revolution has us people that used library index cards wide eyed in wonder.
Children now have access to all information (don’t regulate!!! Like it’s not going to happen, anyway, tho. boo).
I’d think if there’s a reason children are more mature and sophisticated, it’s that many have been given the permission, resources, and tools they need to reach full potential.