I’m all for listening to children and helping them to problem-solve rather than laying down the law without their input. However, children and adolescents more often than not lack the experience and perspective to do their own problem-solving unaided. Susan Jones may think that the solution to her family’s money problems is for her to drop out of middle school and work in a meatpacking plant. Who gets to decide whether that really is a good idea? Someone appointed by the governor, whose campaign is funded by Tyson? A Federalist Society judge, who may make a different decision for Susana Garcia than Susan Jones? The limitations on children’s rights do go hand-in-hand with their legal protections.
Maybe it’s a good idea to take her seriously and sit down with her and explain your own concerns and see where the discussion goes.
I can get behind that 100%. This is, btw, what a good school counselor will do.
Why do you make that distinction? If a 9 year old is mature enough to vote, why are they not mature enough to make other decisions at the family level?
I do not men this insultingly or dismissively, but I had thought you were discussing something within society - which (to me) implies some explicit workable rules and means of enforcement. What you suggest impresses me more along the ines of “good parenting” - and even that in a quite lax society.
So long as we re not talking about any real world, I would be more supportive of what I understand you to be positing if there were a set of minimum qualifications for parenting.
The only situation I was able to come up with that fit my original misperception was if parents did not “support” their kid’s sex/gender identity. But I perceived issues even with that.
I’m not sure how to separate what you discuss from society. I feel my 9-yr old Susie can drive, but they run someone over. Am I liable? Is Susie? Should my 6-yr old be able to enter into enforceable contracts? If we grant minors additional rights, do we also impose additional responsibilities?
I don’t think anything has been suggested so far that I personally consider to be unfair treatment of minors.
Who is going to sit down and explain their own concerns and eventually decide if Susan can make her own decision? Suppose that person is less interested in what’s good for Susan than in some ideology - maybe that person lets Susan quit school and get married at 10 not because it’s best for Susan or because she’s mature enough to decide for herself. Maybe it’s because that person thinks women are meant to be wives and mothers and there’s no reason for them to bother with an education.
I should have added, as I perceive modern society, too may children are given too much agency at too early of an age, and too many young adults blame their shortcomings and disappointments on their parents, rather than their own shortcomings.
Just my opinion, which many doubtlessly disagree with.
If you’re giving children more independence, dos that mean that their parents or guardians have fewer legal obligations towards them? If my kid can do whatever he wants, do I still have to feed him and keep a roof over his head?
Two thoughts:
Any discussions of “children’s lib” is going to run into the same problem as unbridled free speech spaces: the pedophiles are going to come in and fuck it up for everyone else.
Any attempt to give rights based on some sort of gradient or competency testing is going to lead to many adults never getting full rights, and that seems like it will inevitably be grossly abused. Right now, we have a two tiered system: if you are an adult, you are assumed to have full rights/agency, and they can only be removed through due process. As a child, you are assumed not to have certain rights/agency, but they can be extended in many cases, again through due process. This seems correct to me: As a society, I’d rather err on the side of giving adults too many rights/too much agency, and children too few/little. This is because the risk of over-powered children hurting themselves or others seems higher to me, and the social consequences of denying them rights they potentially could handle seems lower–they will eventually “age out”. On the other hand, denying adults rights because they can’t prove competency seems like it should be used only in extreme circumstances.
There’s also a ‘who pays the piper’ aspect to consider.
Let’s face it, it’s a rare child who can earn enough money to pay for everything necessary to support themselves on even the most meager of standards before, oh, let’s be generous and say age 16. (Yes there are child actors/models/performers/etc. but they are a tiny percent of the population of children.)
It doesn’t matter one bit if a child decides he wants to order in pizza for dinner and a 60" television for his private use in his private bedroom if the parental adults who will be footing the bill for it decide that dinner will be some rice and bean combo, that they can only afford a two bedroom apartment (despite having four kids), and they can only afford a single television in the living room.
Sure, parents can and do give their children’s opinion more and more weight as they judge their children to be smart/experienced enough to decide matters on that level. Why not let your toddler pick between the blue or green t shirt? The seven year old can certainly choose whether to have grape or strawberry jelly in the PB&J for lunch. And so on. But it has to be the parent deciding the child is now capable of handling that level of responsibility.
The area where I see the hugest impact on children’s lives there really isn’t a practical way of giving them a say. (Maybe I see it as important because there are currently a couple cases of it happening in my extended family right now.)
What should happen when a parent makes a decision on the level of moving the household? Marrying or otherwise bringing a new partner (plus maybe additional children) into the house?
Surely a child has no right to say a parent can’t move, no matter how much the kid loves the current place, his school, his friends and hates the idea of losing it all?
Surely a child has no veto power over a parent remarrying, even if it means there will be a new adult telling him what to do sometimes, maybe drastic changes in their diet due to a new cook’s cuisine or dietary beliefs, maybe three additional children who will now be competing for time/space/resources?
I’m glad you brought it up, because in the past I’ve found this is a way for people to talk about lowering the age of consent without actually having to talk about lowering the age of consent. While I believe the OP started this thread in good faith, I believe there are a lot of bad actors out there who would seize this as an opportunity to abuse children. Not just pedophiles, but some employers, parents, educators, and others who would “allow” the child to make decisions that are good for the adult and bad for the children.
Imagine a kid comes a school counselor and tells her, “This is a waste of my time. I don’t want ot be here. I’m quitting.” You’d expect a counselor to try to talk the student out of quitting, but, hey, this is a low performer and getting low performers out of the school means our test averages go up.
Yep it’s that or people who want to eliminate child labor laws. Generally extreme libertarian types.
I definitely disagree. I think children used to carry their own weight and had considerably more agency at the task and contribution level than they do now. It didn’t often carry over into general decisive authority, but at the age of 8 or 11 you not only had “chores” you had real responsibilities, some of which included executive function — it’s your job to figure it out, or it’s your job to figure out what has to be first priority to make it all work.
Children in modern society hit a certain age where both they and their families would benefit if they traded places with other kids the same age. I’ve watched this happen: the transplanted kids are more often than not on their best behavior and trying to contribute usefully around the house, and the transplant family is appreciative of it instead of taking it for granted and behaves hostlike.
Anyway, in a lot of families 75 years ago, the ten year olds watched the five year olds and the five year olds helped dress and diaper and keep an eye on the babies. Sometimes they cooked dinner. It was often their job to have the house clean. Wash dishes. Do the laundry. Make the beds (a lot of beds).
I’m not saying “Gee, modern kids are spoiled, too bad they don’t have to do chores like in the good old days”. I’m saying it feels good to be a participant and a contributing member and we don’t give kids enough opportunity to get that kind of sense of self-worth.
A lot of you folks are still asking which laws we change, what the new rules will be. That is a really complicated question and I’m going to keep saying “that’s not where we should start. First let’s explore attitudes and expectations and all that. Those have to change in order for the laws to change anyhow, and the law problem is intricately complicated”.
I would say we have a weird thing were we both gives kids less responsibility and guidance when they are young, but more autonomy when they are older, and both are problematic.
I wrote this back in 2020, and it pretty much sums up my thinking on how weird and backwards our attitudes toward children are. But it’s worth noting that the same cultures that let children have more real responsibilities as children also often don’t allow children to really make independent decisions until they are in their mid to late 20s–if then. Legally, young adults may have full rights, but things like marriage or education or jobs are still decided by consensus within the family, and the young adult’s voice counts for less than the older generation.
Children shouldn’t vote on major family decisions, not because they’re children, but because nobody should vote on major family decisions. Families don’t work that way.
I think we may be talking past each other. Tho you still may likely disagree with me, I was not suggesting we ought not give children considerable responsibility. I think children are far more capable than I often see them being treated. Instead, what I disfavor is giving children as young as toddlers the say in very minor decisions involved in running a household. When/what to eat, what to wear, etc. Running a household is a lot of work, and while parents ought not consistently defer to, “Because I said so,” I too often see things taken to another extreme. And sometimes kids need to just be told, “No, you may not do that.” Instead of getting into a big discussion about “how it makes them feel.”
I perceive many disadvantages in giving young children the perception of agency such as I describe. I have seen many children melt down over their inability to decide - or hold their families hostage to their immature decision-making. At the same time, they get an inaccurate impression of their extent to which the rest of the world cares about their preferences.
Somewhat related - sorta what you suggest, I perceive an infantilizing of children/young adults. I see parent driving their kids places and scheduling activities, when our parents would have just said, “You have a bike and your 2 legs.” And I hear of teens/young adults making stupid decisions, but instead of holding them accountable, I hear, “But they are young. They’re just being kids.”
Just wanted to clarify a bit on one statement you may have interpreted differently than I intended.
I could be talked into supporting a lower age for voting. But i think kids need someone to care for them, and they appropriately lose a lot of rights by being dependants. That argument is a lot stronger for one years old than for 16 year olds, of course.
We do this even in basic questions of bodily autonomy. No one carefully makes sure their newborn consents before changing the child’s diapers and wiping the child’s genitalia. And somehow, we manage to require consent before doing the same to a 17 year old. That graduation isn’t executed perfectly, but on average, it’s not horrible.
I’m not convinced that what we do now is the best. But i haven’t read anything here that i want to change towards.
But why is that? I thought this thread was challenging the assumption that children can’t make decisions for themselves. But in the realm of the family, do only parents have decision-making authority? Seems to me to be a disconnect.
Depends entirely on the issue.
Some family issues - young children do not even need to know about. Running a household is challenging enough without making every decision a group discussion. A parent does act as a filter of information and responsibility for their children. Each parent gets leeway in deciding when their kid is old enough to know about the ugliest of news events, or specifics of household finances.
But on many issues, sure, everyone’s opinions and preferences should be solicited. But IMO a family ought not operate as a 1-person/1-vote democracy.
I think part of it is the difference between making decisions for themselves and making decisions that will affect the whole family. There are loads of decisions I let my kids make for themselves when they were young - there were people I knew who would insist on deciding if the kid wore the red T shirt or the same T shirt in blue , or which sport the kid would play or instrument the kid the kid would learn and so on. I let my kids make those and similar decisions , including not wearing a coat to the car in winter ( I did make sure I brought one). They could choose whether they ate what I made for dinner or they could make themselves something else. If it only affected them I tended to let them decide. They chose their own high schools within the universe of the ones I could afford. But the 8 year old and the 9 year old don’t get a vote in whether we sell the house and move or whether I change jobs or my husband buys a new car. The 17 year old might get to stay behind with Grandma when we move- but listening to preferences is not the same thing as giving a vote.