Marginalization of young polys

While I don't disagree raven, you bring up a lot of points I used to debate with when I argued with my family. However how do you ensure the safety of certain individuals without some marginalization.

Take sex as an example. I think we can agree that not everyone who is 14 should be having sex. They can't handle it. Hence why laws are in place in certain areas. Lets say we remove those laws. This opens up those who can't naturally handle the repercussions & responsibilities of having sex (std, pregnancy etc) How does that get handled? Do we leave it to the parents who are doing a random job of raising kids? Schools? Or do we just let chaos be chaos and hope for the best.

Apply that to your driving rentals. This one is likely easier to deal with, but how do you NOT have blanket laws, or do you just let the 21 to 24 year olds run wild and hope that they don't get into accidents, which is statistically higher in that age group and sex.

Just curious, I am far from arguing, your points are valid. But no one has ever been able to give me a good alternative to think of that would

a) not marginalize
b) still leave people safe when they can't take responsibility themselves. (unfortunately, in a perfect world, personal responsibility is almost a utopia...as it stands now, its "oh shit I made a mistake, who can I blame?")

I spent a lot of time arguing these points when I was younger, as a conservative (Canadian mind you) I could see both sides of the coin. I would love to hear your points, and they don't have to be specific to mine, as the argument is pretty generic.

How do you have controls in place to help those people who for whatever reason are not mature and/or old enough to help themselves, while they fully believe they are doing good things. Or are you talking about opening up completely and letting the coins fall as they may.
 
See, the thing is, I don't see that as marginalization of "younger polys", i see that as drawing a line in the sand with regard to age-appropriate material (as determined by society in general and the government in particular). While some may consider this to be a semantic way of justifying "marginalization", I think of it as part of the "social contract" with a resulting rite of passage. The same could be said for "excluding" people under the age of 21 from the "bar scene" or "denying" people under a certain age from the "right" to work.

So, younger people will continue to be "marginalized" in many ways that are considered beneficial by society - ostensibly in order to "protect" the same group that is being "marginalized".

I guess I don't see this in the same light as racism or sexism. And I haven't experienced it in the same way either. Everyone was/is young(er) at some point. NOT everyone is black or female at some point. So, I don't think of forming groups that focus on certain age demographics and not others are "marginalizing" or "discriminating" against the groups that they do not focus on.

However, as I have said before, I have felt marginalized as a younger person in the workplace, where the purpose of the organization is not to serve the needs of a certain age demographic but to combine efforts to provide a product or service to consumers. In that setting, marginalization of any sub-group is counterproductive to the goal(s) or the organization or business as well as to the personal agendas of individual workers. That is why laws such as affirmative action are needed, although that is a whole other double-edged sword because it can lead to further marginalization.

That's all I have for now.
 
Last edited:
It's a matter of awareness of how human beings are connected. People are marginalized so that others may have dominance. People are oppressed so that others may have privilege.
I agree, and while ona grand scale it's possible to educate GENERALLY-it's not so easy on a specific scale as was brought up by this thread. It's one thing to work on reducing marginalization as a rule of thumb, but when trying to reduce a specific marginalization to a specific group-it requires a bit more specific "plan of action"and less generalization.
Particularly in this case-not one person here was able to give a specific example of what could be done HERE to make it so that younger poly's don't feel marginalized by THIS group.
I AGREE that it's important to look at our r/l's and address where we do things that perpetuate these issues (not just marginalization, but it's a good example) but one of the keys is to find specific behaviors in specific situations where we can show them to people. Because as Ceoli keeps saying- MOST PEOPLE arent aware that they ARE doing something to marginalize another group, so they need to be shown EXACTLY what behavior is perpetuating it.
If we say "you are hurting me" over and over, but we dont' say HOW-it's not likely to stop-even if the other person doesn't want to hurt us. They may not know HOW they are hurting us without us giving a specific.
Like a car accident-I was the first person on scene, the lady was stuck in a crushed SUV. She was crying about being in pain (her legs were crushed-we could see that, her arms and upper body were not viewable, her face was, but not the rest of her head). It took 5+ minutes-which is a LONG time in that type of situation to find out what she meant, 5 minutes of "can you feel your toes? Is there pain in your lower legs? Upper legs? Hip/groin area? stomach, chest, arms, head?" Finally, breathlessly she said "the only pain is my hair". I sat there confused. By that point there were other people (all men) on scene looking at me (and the door hiding her face from them) like she was INSANE. Her HAIR? I ran the fingers of my left hand through my hair a couple times (nervous thing I did when I had long hair which I did then), my right hand was against her cheek.... I pulled my own hair instinctively a few times, then asked her "is something pulling your hair?"
"YES YES YES AND IT HURTS!!"
Got it.
It didn't matter that SHE knew what was hurting-unless she explained it we couldn't fix it.

Same issue I see here. Frustration that so many of us "don't care". We do care Raven, we just don't UNDERSTAND. If we didn't care we wouldn't bother to keep reading, contemplating, talking about it with others and trying to post questions...
Some people lash out violently when their place in these dynamics are spoken about. Those who state "these dynamics do not exist in my world or in my area," or as you LR state that there is a problem with stating that there is a responsibility of every human being to be aware and address the roles they play in marginalizing others, well this only serves to perpetuate the problem
That wasn't what I said Raven-I said it was a problem if it didn't include information on what to do about it. There is a HUGE difference. I spend hours of my time working on these issues where I live-but they aren't the same environments, my world and yours (or Ceoli's or RP's etc etc). I've never been IN a city like New York City.
The area I live in averages 2.4 ppl / square mile. The WHOLE of New York STATE is 400 ppl/ square mile. The Whole STATE I live in is 1.1 ppl/square mile.

The OPPORTUNITY for us to really grasp the depth of these types of issues is very limited, and I've lived here my WHOLE LIFE. As I said in another thread, I DO want to help, but the truth is that there is VERY little mistreatment of people in Alaska compared to other places, because we have MILES of land and FEW people-it totally changes the dynamic. If you don't regularly encounter very many people in person-it's a lot harder to feel as though they mistreat you.
Does any of this make sense?



There are those who genuinely care about people other than themselves and seek to stop social structures that disadvantage others while recognizing where these structures benefit them. They actively work together and work against accepting oppression as the norm they were trained to think it was. This includes stopping the replication of these structures in communities we create for ourselves such as the polyamorous community.
Several of them are the same people on here (such as myself) that you seem to think are intentionally building such things. We can only work with what we have Raven (as I said to Ceoli). It's not helpful to point out a problem if you can't follow with a suggestion for resolution that is applicable to the people involved.
That doesn't mean it's not helpful to point out a problem, it simply means that in doing so one must ALSO consider who they are pointing it out TO and ensure that they tailor their suggestion for resolution so that the other person is CAPABLE of understanding it. Even if it's a GREAT suggestion-if the other person can't understand it-it's not applicable in that moment.

It is disheartening that such derision has been directed at Ceoli here because she is vocal about issues of privilege. Contrary to implications otherwise, she is entitled to voice these views and serves as a welcome ally in creating change.
Not sure if I missed something else or not-I certainly wasn't aiming any derision at Ceoli. In fact I find her much easier to talk with because when I tell her I dont' understand and ask her to explain something to me, she generally does with no sarcasm, no back bite and no sense that I have offended her in my confusion. This is something I find meaningful and helpful. I very much enjoy reading her explanations, because so much of what she's experienced and seen in the world-I've never had the opportunity to see but it interests me.

It is a surprise for me to see within this forum the rejection of people joining each other across difference in this way. Even so much that it is stated that it is quite normal to be repelled by difference. It lends an undertone of dis-ingeniousness to the forum where love and acceptance is so often spoken of.

I don't know what this means. I haven't seen a significant amount of rejection (not saying it doesn't exist-just that I haven't seen it). I have seen a LOT of miscommunication though and that is disheartening to me. I wonder if they are related...


All right. Does this justify belittling others' choose to address the issue?
How did I belittle anyone in their choices or otherwise???? :confused:
 
LR, you expressed your total lack of respect for those in this thread who were trying to address the issue of marginalization.
No-I expressed my total lack of respect for harping on one type of marginalization without addressing ways to fix it AND whilst having a whole thread of people saying that they (the supposedly marginalized example) didn't feel it or see it.
Marginalization IS an issue-but not in ALL areas or places for ALL topics. If we want to fix something-we need to fix the specifics one place at a time, jumping up and down having temper tantrums doesn't educate people, giving specifics that are pertinent to them can.

You stated some other issue was being masked by the topic of marginalization, dismissing the views raised as "real" as opposed to whatever you're imagining lies beneath. That is fantasy and utterly ignoring actual questions and topics raised. You could also state that everyone here are actually octopi masquerading as human beings. It would be no less disconnected or based in fantasy.
Raven-I said that the supposed big issue of MARGINALIZATION OF THE YOUNG POLYS on this board was being masking a different issue-and I believe it is. It's no fantasy-just because the sky appears blue-as you pointed out does not in fact MAKE IT blue. Just because it might have appeared that the issue here was marginalization of young-polys does not mean it was.
That said-I DO believe that young people (poly and mono alike) are marginalized in many ways in many places. But that issue wasn't being addressed. In fact it still hasn't been addressed.
What's been addressed and again left unresolved is the inability for a number of people on this board to effectively communicate with one another..... It's an ongoing common theme around here the last two months or so.


Somehow you managed to ignore those who did say they have felt marginalized based on age.
Nope-that was DrunkenPorquipine (and no I don't have two windows open and didn't have to go back to reread it to recall that). I didn't ignore that. But one person having felt that they were marginalized somewhere at sometime (didn't state it was ON THIS BOARD) in an environment I have no access to (nor do I even know where it is) isn't something I can FIX. I could invite them to my home and area, but they aren't likely to move here at this point anyway. I can also listen to their story-and read their other posts which tell about their experiences, get to knowthem and consider what things happen in their life that I can fight against in my environment so as to reduce that marginalization OVERALL (world scheme) but I can't personally impact it in their life where they life.

For you to then tell others maybe it's time to move on to topics that "DO pertain" as though marginalization does not, because to you it does not seem to be an issue within this forum (where of course it is) is condescending and dismissive.
When a thread about marginalization disgresses to arguing about technicalities of manners, it doesn't pertain any longer and isn't fostering any benefit to curing marginalization OR a "friendly social environment" on the board. Therefore it IS better to move on to topics that pertain (and hopefully can stay on track to some degree), ESPECIALLY when the people who WERE talking agreed that it wasn't an issue on this board....
How can you proclaim that you know I was condescending and dismissive-when you have stated very similar things and insisted that those of us who took them as condescending/dismissive/marginalizing/rude etc were "just making up our own interpretations".....

Yeah, it is easy to blithely and glibly say, we're all people and we should agree that their are different types of people. However many have to struggle every day simply for being different.
No shit Raven. My sister is black, my daughter is Puerta Rican, my boyfriend is Chinese, I am FEMALE, I am bi and not accepted by the gay community in Alaska (which does exist) or the straight community (which also exists). Where do you fantasize that any of us were "blithely and glibly" saying any of what we said? (to use your words-fantasizing up the meaning of what someone says seems to be a concept you tell us we are doing when reading what you write-and yet you, like every person on the planet, also have to try to presume some context of joint understanding behind what we type, maybe you could work on accepting that HOW you come across is no less fantasized than how we come across to you)

They are marginalized. They don't usually gain the rights to a full life unless others understand their struggle, the part we all play in that struggle, and seek to stop the prejudices that reinforce marginalization alongside them. Small scale or large.
I'm well aware of this. I am well versed in fighting this. I have been in out of courts fighting against this and for the rights of those who struggle to gain equality in ways that DO exist here. But that doesn't mean that I can easily comprehend the SPECIFIC needs for a group I don't have experience with-unless those who DO have that experience are willing to be KIND and SPECIFICALLY explain it.

Is it really then a surprise to be treated in the dismissive haughty way you've treated others because the topic doesn't matter to you? Why should you not be treated in the manner you've addressed this thread and those who participate in it?
Raven-THAT was MY WHOLE POINT TO YOU. You haven't ONE TIME said something freaking respectful or kind to me despite MONTHS of my time on this board being PRECISELY kind, respectful, understanding, accepting and asking for information about other people's issues. You just immediately jumped my case as though you know I am a psycho bitch who supports the demise of any who are different from me.
The only key difference I've seen thus far-is you don't give a shit that you are perpetuating on this board exactly what you are evidently trying to fight in the world!

I simply stated it wasn't really as we all get PMs. Surely you do not think you and I alone share the views we've expressed here. It does not surprise me that others agree with me or disagree with me. But it seems to be of high value for you.
No-what was of high value was that they didn't understand you-and I felt that you likely had a good point IF I could figure it out. SO I asked in the HOPES that you (like Ceoli) would take the time to patiently explain it when someone asked you to.
BUT you chose instead to attempt to degrade me for asking. Which only promotes more people thinking that you are unapproachable and have a personal hidden agenda.
Your PURPOSE may be sound-but your methodology sucks.

I don't address shadowy figures (or introduce them lol) anymore than I address fantastical motives that have been brought into this discussion from who knows where. I respond to what is actually said not rumored. For someone who speaks about the "real" you've brought a lot of shallowness to the foreground.
Are you serious Raven???? There was no rumor, no fantastical b.s. no attempt to degrade you or call you names in clever, manipulated sentences. I said I was confused as were other people and I was hoping you could explain.
Yet STILL you would prefer to talk shit to me as though I am the dirt beneath your feet whilst also telling me that I "make up" and "fantasize" your words into that which they are not.

Perhaps it's my turn to get bored. I don't deal with others in a shallow manner. I suppose it then follows that I don't deal well with shallow and/or self unaware people. I do not feel a need to sugar coat my views. I believe people have personal responsibility to deal with their faults and shortcomings and not constantly have others deal for them.
Wish you held that standard to the requests made of you to lay off of the appearance of attitude you continue to portray...

This is where I get off on the degenerating spiral into nowhere and return to the topic of marginalization with those who wish to talk about it and methods of addressing it.

That would be a relief.

ON that note-

let me repeat-

I didn't Understand what it was you were trying to say some 10 pages ago about marginalization of young polys and would GREATLY appreciate it if you would help make it clearer for me!
 
There are 1,525, members on this forum and 322 active members. Would all those who feel marginalized as young polies please say something. Perhaps this is a valid topic, perhaps it is in the mind of a limited few, so I'm begging you....if you feel marginalized say something so the rest of us can at least feel there is actually a problem here. Pretty, pretty please:eek:

My frustration with this topic is that no one seems to be admitting that they feel marginalized because of their youth. And no one seems to be able to concisely explain what the fuck that means.

I'm editting to expand on my request - I am not that smart - I want an example...a real world, tangible, already occured, occuring event.


Maybe this post should start it's own thread.
I'm interested as well. But not sure anyone is going to pop into page 11 or 12 to find this, especially if they DO feel that way............

Just wanted to say that I'm in the age group in question and in no way feel maginalized. The poly community in my city has been one of the most welcoming places I have ever been :D

-Derby


I'm very happy for you Derby! (sincerely).
I think it's awesome that so many people are finding themselves more able to be ..... to be THEMSELVES in their real lives and be welcomed and accepted as such!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clique-ism which was highlighted in an experience quila shared and LR illustrated an aspect of it in practice in regards to rumors (if any truth can be attached to descriptions of numerous shadowy people).

:eek:

Good grief-when do you stop???
You make a BROAD assumption that I even KNEW or had EVER had a personal conversation with "those shadowy people" before! In point of fact-two of them were INTRODUCING themselves to me BECAUSE of the fact that in reading my posts they found that was open and caring across the board, understanding and NOT CLIQUISH.
 
Let's discuss this forum for a moment.

Would you folks consider it "marginalization of young polys" the fact that the site guidelines explicitly exclude those under the age of 18?

Mmmmm, I've considered that a LOT recently. Ironically most of the people I do know who consider themselves poly are either over 40 or under 20, and a lot of those under 20 are under 18...
Having been a business owner I understand that there are more risks when involving "minors" (those under 18) and yet-in some ways I do think it's marginalization. I think in a lot of ways our whole society marginalizes our youth in many horrible ways.
( I like your question and hope that it leads to more in depth answers and thoughts)

See, the thing is, I don't see that as marginalization of "younger polys", i see that as drawing a line in the sand with regard to age-appropriate material (as determined by society in general and the government in particular). While some may consider this to be a semantic way of justifying "marginalization", I think of it as part of the "social contract" with a resulting rite of passage. The same could be said for "excluding" people under the age of 21 from the "bar scene" or "denying" people under a certain age from the "right" to work.

So, younger people will continue to be "marginalized" in many ways that are considered beneficial by society - ostensibly in order to "protect" the same group that is being "marginalized".

I guess I don't see this in the same light as racism or sexism. And I haven't experienced it in the same way either. Everyone was/is young(er) at some point. NOT everyone is black or female at some point. So, I don't think of forming groups that focus on certain age demographics and not others are "marginalizing" or "discriminating" against the groups that they do not focus on.

However, as I have said before, I have felt marginalized as a younger person in the workplace, where the purpose of the organization is not to serve the needs of a certain age demographic but to combine efforts to provide a product or service to consumers. In that setting, marginalization of any sub-group is counterproductive to the goal(s) or the organization or business as well as to the personal agendas of individual workers. That is why laws such as affirmative action are needed, although that is a whole other double-edged sword because it can lead to further marginalization.

That's all I have for now.

EEK.
Got no argument-but definitly got food for thought.
In our state-once you bare a child-you are automatically emancipated (one of the ways a youth can overcome "marginalization" from the laws). So by 16 I was allowed the privileges of an adult (not including going into a bar or buying liquor).
It really aggravated me that my sister was MORE "mature" and responsible and capable but she didn't have those rights. I very much did feel that it was wrong.
On the other hand-
the part of your post which I bolded-that screams at me, because it's so poignantly true....

I already gave the example of the work thing which goes along with what you say here as well.
But I really think the bolded statement is worth deeper consideration in regards to "marginalization"........much deeper...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would like to add that older people are pretty much marginalized in the same way that younger people are in the workplace. People on their way in and people on their way "out" (but usually not REALLY on their way out) versus people in the middle with experience yet having a substantial "shelf-life" such that they're "worth" the investment of having them as an employee because they'll be around for another two or three decades (potentially). Well, with respect to hiring practices, anyway.

I know this goes on in Western society, at least here in the US. Perhaps things are different in Canada, Europe, or Japan, but I live here, so I talk about what I know.
 
Said the store clerk...........

I caught a shoplifter first thing this morning.
And all I saw the rest of the day was more shoplifters !
Be glad when today is over !

:)
 
Thoughts

Ok..........

I just finished reading a long essay from one of the links Raven posted - a Freaksexual site.

http://freaksexual.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/age-and-polyamory-organizing/

So if nothing else I think (?) I have a much better understanding of where this current topic & debate came from.
And it was interesting.
The writer did present some interesting material in places. Overall however it was full of numerous contradictions and some questionable assumptions. The overall tone comes across to me as aggressive and confrontational. Much the same tone we've seen here on this forum at times. And this is an attitude & culture that seems prevalent today.
But here's what "I" came away with if I can boil it down to a short summary.
1> As I suspected before looking deeper, the biggest divide and concern seems to come down to the social interaction/dating aspects. Perfectly understandable.
2> The general tone does seem to be reflective of a general cultural shift that's taken place over the last 25-30 years. Western culture is undoubtedly the champion of this but it has spread worldwide. And it's (to me) not really even an 'age' thing - but only manifesting itself in that guise because people born in that time period have been caught smack-dab in the middle of it and unless they develop some desire/ability to actually seek out what other options there are, will only be in a position to assume 'that's the way life is'. But it doesn't HAVE to be :( Another topic entirely.
But the riff seems very tied to the current cultural norm of "I want it NOW, I want it MY way, and YOU are in my way !" There doesn't seem to be a lot of room for analyzing if this 'want' is best, if there are other choices, how much work/time might be expected to get there etc. So naturally along with that attitude is a missing element of much desire for what I call true 'dialoge'. It's kind of like........."well - someone else might have something to say about this - maybe it might even have some value - but I ain't got time for it. I'm on a mission (of self fulfillment) Don't bother me now."
And what I guess I find disturbing about this general approach is maybe the missed opportunity for learning about true dialog and skills. It's mostly about talking and not so much about listening. Not looking for, or trying to build, common ground as much as zoned in on differences and justification to 'do your own thing'.
Now, this may itself sound 'age-ist', and I guess it is important to note that, as I mentioned to someone else recently, I'm one O dem damn hippies ! So my perspective and experiences kind of go back to a lot of the beginnings of these social awarness causes. But things WERE different then. We didn't have books and professors then to just lay it all out in nice, neat little packages (designed and edited by who knows who). We had to build it, figure it out as we went. But one thing that was different is that we didn't think we had all the answers. So input and TRUE dialog (bidirectional) was critical and fundemental. Even the concept of age-ism would have been so foreign & unacceptable as to be insulting to the group !
So bottom line - I don't see this being anything at all about 'marginalization'. If it is, it's obviously self designed & perpetuating. Too bad really. If there is to be defined a 'victim' here (another wonderful modern cultural phenomenon) it seems they may be mostly self inflicted wounds.

GS
 
While I don't disagree raven, you bring up a lot of points I used to debate with when I argued with my family. However how do you ensure the safety of certain individuals without some marginalization.
I find this interesting. The concept of preserving the safety of people by denying them the ability to do things. I think it is valid for one thing at this point. But the rest?

I'm still waiting for The Netherlands to fall into the sea at this point with all the whoring and drug use that's allowed.

Take sex as an example. I think we can agree that not everyone who is 14 should be having sex. They can't handle it. Hence why laws are in place in certain areas. Lets say we remove those laws. This opens up those who can't naturally handle the repercussions & responsibilities of having sex (std, pregnancy etc) How does that get handled? Do we leave it to the parents who are doing a random job of raising kids? Schools? Or do we just let chaos be chaos and hope for the best.
What is the assumption being made here about those who are 14 as opposed to those who are 34 or 54? Are all of those in these age ranges ready to handle the repercussions and responsibilities of having sex? Why are these laws put in place for those who are 14 alone? What is the relation to age?
Apply that to your driving rentals. This one is likely easier to deal with, but how do you NOT have blanket laws, or do you just let the 21 to 24 year olds run wild and hope that they don't get into accidents, which is statistically higher in that age group and sex.
The law does not prevent or have any effect on accidents. It simply allows higher fees to be levied on car renters aged 21 to 24. It does not exist in every state. The non-discriminatory way to handle this would be to examine driving history and proceed accordingly much like how credit history is used. Next is to improve education in regards to driving. Somehow my BF held a license from the age of 15, drove everywhere from rural to urban and never had an accident or violation. Yet the blanket does not take this into account.

A blanket is just that. A blanket. A band-aid that does not address the underlying problem. If male drivers aged 21-24 (or any age group) have more accidents than other age groups in one area (because it will differ in various locations), focus on increasing education in the observed troublesome areas. If parallel parking is a problem, focus on parallel parking. Why let the obvious issue go ignored? So it can be used as a justification to make more money?

These are human beings who can learn. Being 21-24 is not indicative of some age related deficiency in driving that will only be cured at 25 or any other age.

How do you have controls in place to help those people who for whatever reason are not mature and/or old enough to help themselves, while they fully believe they are doing good things. Or are you talking about opening up completely and letting the coins fall as they may.
What I see throughout your post is an equation of age to possibility of chaos and maturity level. As though allowing younger people the same rights as older people would somehow be inciting chaos and things running wild. Letting the coins fall where they may.

We're not working from the same premise. I don't equate capability and maturity (beyond physical maturity and even that varies from individual to individual) with how old someone is. Young =/= reckless.

As I do not think age is the root of these problems, the alternatives would not focus on age. Statistics can be used to discriminate or they can be used to improve societal conditions.

Education, required education if necessary, would alleviate driving issues as needed in certain areas.

Another example of a statistic that has been used both ways is the amount of AIDS and HIV cases in certain communities. It's been used as justification by some for why staying away from certain communities of people is fine. However the non-marginalizing route would be examining issues of access to healthcare and sexual health education and addressing the lack thereof.

ADDED: The most ludicrous one I find in regards to the above is not allowing gay men the ability to donate blood. Different issues from driving but the same concept is applied. A blanket rule for a higher risk group.

An analogy is that statistically some plants don't grow well in some regions as opposed to others. It can be stated that blanketly those plants shouldn't be grown.

Or if a plant doesn't grow well here but it grows spectacularly there, we can observe what is lacking here and give it what it needs to flourish. It might need a greenhouse.

The cost might seem high for plants. Some people do it though.


Is there a cost too high to improve human beings and their quality of life? That answer may differ depending on the person.


Alternatives are problem-solving, practical and not a symptom of being young and steeped in utopianism.

~Raven~
 
Last edited:
See, the thing is, I don't see that as marginalization of "younger polys", i see that as drawing a line in the sand with regard to age-appropriate material (as determined by society in general and the government in particular). While some may consider this to be a semantic way of justifying "marginalization", I think of it as part of the "social contract" with a resulting rite of passage. The same could be said for "excluding" people under the age of 21 from the "bar scene" or "denying" people under a certain age from the "right" to work.
What qualifies as age-appropriate and what is the rationale behind that?

As a chosen 'rite of passage' I think these (drinking, sex, voting, working) pretty much suck.

What is constantly being ignored is that, in this society in particular, denial is followed by binging/gorging more often than not. When people are denied something, they can go a little 'wild,' to borrow a word Ariakas used, when they finally get it. This is not a reaction that is limited to younger people in the slightest.

But it does seem this reaction is being socially self-induced when it comes to young people. A self-created problem.

It can be observed that within different countries and different cultures, sex and drinking, etc are treated quite differently with all manner of different variables. Lower drinking ages is fun to check in connection to auto accidents and DWI incidents. Even cultures that are considered "less advanced" by Western standards have women living day to day topless and men aren't frothing at the mouth, forcing themselves on anyone nor are people only having sex day in and day out.
So, younger people will continue to be "marginalized" in many ways that are considered beneficial by society - ostensibly in order to "protect" the same group that is being "marginalized".
This sounds similar to what Ariakas stated about safety. Why is this 'protection' not extended to all age groups?
I guess I don't see this in the same light as racism or sexism. And I haven't experienced it in the same way either. Everyone was/is young(er) at some point. NOT everyone is black or female at some point. So, I don't think of forming groups that focus on certain age demographics and not others are "marginalizing" or "discriminating" against the groups that they do not focus on.
I feel like this could tip off an entirely different discussion about groups aimed at women, different ethnic groups or races, or religions. What do you feel about them? I am curious but it is too far removed from the topic to engage in a full conversation I think.
However, as I have said before, I have felt marginalized as a younger person in the workplace, where the purpose of the organization is not to serve the needs of a certain age demographic but to combine efforts to provide a product or service to consumers. In that setting, marginalization of any sub-group is counterproductive to the goal(s) or the organization or business as well as to the personal agendas of individual workers. That is why laws such as affirmative action are needed, although that is a whole other double-edged sword because it can lead to further marginalization.

That's all I have for now.
I think that's quite a lot. And I understand and agree for the most part.

I'll say this about the double edged sword. I don't see it. I'll stick with plants for a moment.

You have two plants (as you may have two human beings). One gets watered regularly, sunlight and a bonus. The bonus is fertilizer. It grows and it flourishes.

The other plant gets a drip of water a day, the majority of the day it is hidden from the sun and it gets no fertilizer. Affirmative action enables the last sad plant the same water, sunlight and yes even the fertilizer that the first plant has. From the same store of resources. The first plant can no longer hoard the abundant resources all to itself. Cries of reverse discrimination are the first plant not liking the second plant growing in leaps and bounds now with the proper care, as well as not liking the reality of sharing the resources it once had all to itself.

~Raven~
 
Said the store clerk...........

I caught a shoplifter first thing this morning.
And all I saw the rest of the day was more shoplifters !
Be glad when today is over !

:)

That's a great way to dismiss a perspective that's different than yours. I'm glad that works for you.
 
What qualifies as age-appropriate and what is the rationale behind that?

I'm not the one who decides these things. Besides, your question is not very specific and I am not inclined to write a PhD thesis just because you asked me to.

As a chosen 'rite of passage' I think these (drinking, sex, voting, working) pretty much suck.

You have the right to your opinion. A lot of things "suck", and people need to suck it up. This is the reality, not paradise.

What is constantly being ignored is that, in this society in particular, denial is followed by binging/gorging more often than not. When people are denied something, they can go a little 'wild,' to borrow a word Ariakas used, when they finally get it. This is not a reaction that is limited to younger people in the slightest.

But it does seem this reaction is being socially self-induced when it comes to young people. A self-created problem.

I guess the answer is to allow anyone of any age to drink, vote, and fuck anytime anywhere.

Maybe education should not be mandatory in Western society for certain age groups either. After all, other cultures do not require it, some even forbid the education of women in certain circumstances. Maybe all people of all ages should be allowed to choose what they eat, where they go, what they do. If a 7 year old knows what's best for him or her self, who are parents or the government to dictate otherwise? If a 7 year old or a 9 year old or a 4 year old wants to sit and watch cartoons and eat nothing but Lucky Charms cereal all day, they should be allowed to because it would be ageist to suggest that someone else who is older might know better. How dare adults set boundaries for their children or for minors as a group? That's just wrong. Everyone should be free to decide everything for themselves. Fuck society.

And porn should be made available to people of all ages. Who are we as a society to deny children of all ages the "right" to explore their sexuality! That's AGEISM! It should be all or nothing. If something is appropriate for a 21-year-old, it should be appropriate for a 16 year old. If something is appropriate for a 16 year old, it should be appropriate for a 12 year old. If something is appropriate for a 12 year old, it should be ook for a 5 year old... because where do we draw the line and who decides where the line should be drawn?

I say, "Deal with it, and when you're 21 (or 18 or 19, depending where you live), then you can sit at the adult table or go out drinking with the big kids."

You're sounding like it's some horrible thing to not be allowed to do whatever, whenever. Yet, below you say that affirmative action is necessary to maintain a level playing field. Make up your mind.

This sounds similar to what Ariakas stated about safety. Why is this 'protection' not extended to all age groups?

I don't know. Why don't you know?

I feel like this could tip off an entirely different discussion about groups aimed at women, different ethnic groups or races, or religions. What do you feel about them? I am curious but it is too far removed from the topic to engage in a full conversation I think.

I don't feel anything about them and choose not to engage in a debate with you about this.

I think that's quite a lot. And I understand and agree for the most part.

I'll say this about the double edged sword. I don't see it. I'll stick with plants for a moment.

You have two plants (as you may have two human beings). One gets watered regularly, sunlight and a bonus. The bonus is fertilizer. It grows and it flourishes.

The other plant gets a drip of water a day, the majority of the day it is hidden from the sun and it gets no fertilizer. Affirmative action enables the last sad plant the same water, sunlight and yes even the fertilizer that the first plant has. From the same store of resources. The first plant can no longer hoard the abundant resources all to itself. Cries of reverse discrimination are the first plant not liking the second plant growing in leaps and bounds now with the proper care, as well as not liking the reality of sharing the resources it once had all to itself.

The "double edged sword" was in regard to when people are hired to fill demographic quotas even if a white male really does happen to be the most qualified applicant for the job.

However, what you described with the plants is not part of the "double-edged sword". I don't believe that there is such a thing as "reverse discrimination". I think that's just a way of white males trying to retain a semblance of privilege by defining a special form of discrimination that applies only to their demographic group. Discrimination is discrimination.

Said the store clerk...........

I caught a shoplifter first thing this morning.
And all I saw the rest of the day was more shoplifters !
Be glad when today is over !

:)

That's a great way to dismiss a perspective that's different than yours. I'm glad that works for you.

Psst!

Said the airport terminal security worker...

I caught someone trying to blow up the plane this morning.
And all I saw the rest of the day were more suicide-bombers!
Be glad when today is over!

(pay no attention to the little terrorist behind the curtain)

<GRIN>
 
Last edited:
I'm not the one who decides these things. Besides, your question is not very specific and I am not inclined to write a PhD thesis just because you asked me to.
I did not ask for a Ph.D. thesis. It is unfortunate you feel the need to characterize my question as a request for one. I asked for the reasoning behind why you agreed with the "age-appropriate" line in the sand as I was interested in your view. It is your right not to answer. It seems discussion was not your aim there which is again your choice.
You have the right to your opinion. A lot of things "suck", and people need to suck it up. This is the reality, not paradise.
I suppose I'm not one of those people that accepts the status quo. And I find I am unapologetic. I do not see why anyone should "suck it up." If there is injustice in reality it can be changed. It does not have to be accepted. I engage in the proactive and not a defeatist attitude. The world might have been suck-ier still if people just "sucked it up."
I guess the answer is to allow anyone of any age to drink, vote, and fuck anytime anywhere.

Maybe education should not be mandatory in Western society for certain age groups either. After all, other cultures do not require it, some even forbid the education of women in certain circumstances. Maybe all people of all ages should be allowed to choose what they eat, where they go, what they do. If a 7 year old knows what's best for him or her self, who are parents or the government to dictate otherwise? If a 7 year old or a 9 year old or a 4 year old wants to sit and watch cartoons and eat nothing but Lucky Charms cereal all day, they should be allowed to because it would be ageist to suggest that someone else who is older might know better. How dare adults set boundaries for their children or for minors as a group? That's just wrong. Everyone should be free to decide everything for themselves. Fuck society.

And porn should be made available to people of all ages. Who are we as a society to deny children of all ages the "right" to explore their sexuality! That's AGEISM! It should be all or nothing. If something is appropriate for a 21-year-old, it should be appropriate for a 16 year old. If something is appropriate for a 16 year old, it should be appropriate for a 12 year old. If something is appropriate for a 12 year old, it should be ook for a 5 year old... because where do we draw the line and who decides where the line should be drawn?

I say, "Deal with it, and when you're 21 (or 18 or 19, depending where you live), then you can sit at the adult table or go out drinking with the big kids."
Interesting interpretation. Someone mentioned anarchy in another thread. Anarchy was not advocated but I find it interesting that that is the conclusion drawn when someone suggests change. No matter what the change is. Similar to ridiculous assertions that people will be asking to marry their pets next if same-sex marriage is allowed.

I do not understand the logic of going to the far extreme as you have done and as others have done.

I am seriously suggesting a different framework be worked from not no framework at all. I see that 'no framework' is the conclusion made often by those who are comfortable with the current one. They do say change makes people uncomfortable and afraid. I suppose there's some truth to it.

You're sounding like it's some horrible thing to not be allowed to do whatever, whenever. Yet, below you say that affirmative action is necessary to maintain a level playing field. Make up your mind.
Your interpretation again of a suggestion that society might function differently and perhaps for the better. In reality I made no claim that it is a horrible thing not to be allowed to do whatever, whenever. Again, the conclusion of a free for all where it was never brought up.

If you feel what you stated above would be beneficial to society in addressing the problems that exists, that is your prerogative. I will have to disagree and continue to work towards practical and equitable solutions.
So, younger people will continue to be "marginalized" in many ways that are considered beneficial by society - ostensibly in order to "protect" the same group that is being "marginalized".
This sounds similar to what Ariakas stated about safety. Why is this 'protection' not extended to all age groups?
I don't know. Why don't you know?
People tend to ask questions when they do not know something. As I don't read minds, I asked you in regards to your first statement.
I don't feel anything about them and choose not to engage in a debate with you about this.
Was there a request for a debate? I was interested in your opinion but I didn't want to go into a discussion about it. I believe I stated that.
The "double edged sword" was in regard to when people are hired to fill demographic quotas even if a white male really does happen to be the most qualified applicant for the job.

However, what you described with the plants is not part of the "double-edged sword". I don't believe that there is such a thing as "reverse discrimination". I think that's just a way of white males trying to retain a semblance of privilege by defining a special form of discrimination that applies only to their demographic group. Discrimination is discrimination.
I actually do see the plants as apart of the "double-edged sword." It is the same treatment which was given to the first plant being given to the second plant. The exact same. That's equity. Historically jobs have been given based on the color and not the qualifications meaning the one with the qualifications did not get the job or the college acceptance (or whatever opportunity) more than once. Hence the withering plant. Now we want the second plant to reach the same level of growth and flourish as the first plant. Logically what needs to be done so that the plants are at the same level of growth?

~Raven~
 
I think I said somewhere in this thread that it's about choosing battles, and choosing certain priorities over others. I candidly admit that I do not really give a damn what people do to each other because people as a species should be able to take care of themselves as individuals. So all the things mentioned in this thread about humans marginalizing each other is simply a topic for intellectual masturbation as far as I'm concerned. I do my best to not be a part of the problem, but I'm not going to make my reason for waking up in the morning to fight against the oppression of all humans everywhere.

So that is why I answered your post the way I did. I guess this makes me a "pessimist", but I have become comfortable with that.
 
Last edited:
*nods* All right YGirl. More power to you. I do not think we're at odds.

There's a happy medium in my perspective between individuality and the recognition that people need people. We have an effect on each other. The world is an interdependent interconnected web. Therefore I care and move through life with intentionality and awareness of the effect I and others have, as this is the nature of reality. I'd say I'm a realist, and somewhat a cross between a existentialist and a transcendentalist. My entire day may not be dedicated to raising awareness, encouraging change as well as being the change but I could not live every day apathetically or devoid of sympathy for others. And I agree, when it comes to deciding the priorities in one's life, one approach more than the other lends itself to creating change or even discussing it constructively in a forum like this.

~Raven~
 
I think I said somewhere in this thread that it's about choosing battles, and choosing certain priorities over others.
YGirl, I absolutely agree with you - because of our differing life experiences we all make choices as to what our priorities are, and the "battles" that we have to face. I don't expect anybody to share my priorities, nor do I respect them to expecting me to share theirs. I think someone's priorities are something that is personal to them, and they should have to justify them to anybody else. As I have said before, it is between them and their own conscience, and not the evaluation of others.

That having been said, in order to make a decision on the priorities that I set, I need information. Without hearing the different issues that are out there it's very difficult to make an informed decision about what is or is not important to me in terms of which battles I give my higher priority.

Therefore I have welcomed the input from all in this thread, giving their take on what is going on - it has certainly helped me formulate my own opinions on where this sits in my priority list, and as a bonus has given me a good bit more insight into the various contributors here.
 
That having been said, in order to make a decision on the priorities that I set, I need information. Without hearing the different issues that are out there it's very difficult to make an informed decision about what is or is not important to me in terms of which battles I give my higher priority.

Therefore I have welcomed the input from all in this thread, giving their take on what is going on - it has certainly helped me formulate my own opinions on where this sits in my priority list, and as a bonus has given me a good bit more insight into the various contributors here.

As was said before, this forum and this thread aren't terribly representative of the people you've been saying that you want information from. I really can't see how what you read here would be sufficient enough to give you a clearer view. Unless confirmation bias is what you were seeking.

If this is something you truly would like to understand, I would suggest going outside of this forum and reading and researching around marginalization and concentration of power. There are many subtleties to the dynamic you were attempting to understand and this thread has barely scratched the surface since many people have been just seeing what they want to see rather than really engage.
 
Back
Top