Talk:Adultism

Call to Remove NPOV Tag

This article is filled with citations that can are verifiable; I propose to remove its NPOV tag. Freechild 14:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The claim that ADHD is made up is totally ludicrous, I am removing it.

Phrased like that, I would agree with you. I'll point out, though, that there's significant controversy surrounding its treatment and classification as a disease. CameoAppearance ^orate 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I have issue with the statement, "Adultism is ostensibly caused by fear of children and youth.[1]"

Nope. I'd have to include that, while a "feature" it is not the "cause." I'm a practicing "adultist" and I DON'T LIKE children and youth. I certainly don't fear the loud, noisy, little attention-seeking bastards. In the colloquial sense, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.10.49 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

General Conversation

Perhaps some explanation of how "Adultism" is present in the given phrases would be appropriate. It appears as though Adultism is made to be a negative behavior; yet some of these phrases appear (to me) to be perfectly acceptable.

Hopefully, some of this is addressed a little better in the latest edit. Aaronwinborn 02:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this is a real term and a real topic -- even if the concept is highly debatable. BCorr|Брайен 11:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, it should be just fixed, rather than being deleted entirely (as FlareNUKE did). I have reverted the deletion of that section, and I am currently writing explanations of why said phrases are adultist. Rory096 1:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the deleted the "Understanding Adultism" link becuase the cookies it sent to my computer had viruses on it.-RainyDayCrow

"Co-counseling"

_ _ It seems implausible & in any case unverifiable to attribute the term to a presumably amorphous "grassroots" co-counseling while avoiding reference to hierarchical orgs: Re-evaluation Counseling(IIRC) coiners of "co-counseling", & its presumed service-mark-claimants, Co-Counselling International.
_ _ It is also a distortion to talk as if whoever coined the term is responsible for the subject of this article, which is the concept the article creator chose to refer to by this term. The chances are excellent that Adultism should be a redirect to another article, after this one is merged into it. Determining what that article is should be on the agenda here until there is a consensus that there is no suitable article already in existence.
--Jerzy•t 14:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have heard and used the term on many occasions over the past few years, none of which through co-counseling. I have heard it in particular in discussions about unschooling, democratic schools, and Sudbury model schools. None of these have any relation to co-counseling, so even if the word originated there, it is certainly not being used exclusively by co-counselors any more.

Unless someone can present another article dealing more suitably with this subject, I would be against merging this article into another, as there is a growing awareness of the concept of adultism. The topic deserves to be heard. Aaronwinborn 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is there just the claim that adultism is the cause of all oppression(!) and no cite or explanation?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.250.221.131 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• The above cmt was added to this section of the talk page 7 to 10 months after the other contributions that existed at that time, but above them (perhaps in clueless imitation of listserve/UseNet style). I have moved it to its proper sequence at the end of the section, without making any judgment about whether there is any hint of appropriateness in its being included in this section.
  --Jerzy•t 01:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  

Seems biased

As much as I am anti-adultist, I don't think that the adult side of the situation seems to be represented enough. This article is very comprehensive to how adultist views can be dismissed, I haven't found an "adultist rebuttal" in the article. Once I see one, I will re-evaluate my opinion. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On the same token, I think you'll find that the Racism article doesn't give the same amount of time to racists as it gives to anti-racists. This is in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy; specifically, "articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". [1] I agree that the article isn't complete, but I think that NPOV tag should be removed, noting the difference between bias and incompleteness. » K i G O E | talk 16:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it could be the wording, but the article seems to me like a child's rant about his parents... Specially the paragraph against those MADD. I don't know who these mothers are, and don't care (they do no harm in Spain), but the paragraph just throws assertions about their (incorrect and silly) views and methods... Which asks for the replica: "and who says that?". Let's remember this is an encyclopaedia. --euyyn 20:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And it's clearly missing proper citations for the assertions and written in a horribly informal tone. Bayerischermann 20:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that the adult viewpoint is the majority viewpoint, not the minority. I would think there are many more people in the world who believe children lack some of the rights adults enjoy than believe the opposite. Applejuicefool 19:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is going to remain disputed as adultism seems to be a generally accepted practise, and adressing it as a form of discrimination is going to upset a large number of people. Many things considered normal are called biased when the facts are given. Adressing the facts about racism one hundred years ago would most likely be called biased in favour of the minorities. That is what seems to be occuring now. It will probably remain disputed for a while to come. Faranya 02:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that "adultism" would mean the hatred of adults by teens. Shouldn't the word be "teenism"? --Charlene 06:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that it was intended to be formed along the same lines as racism and sexism and the like, "adultism" would actually mean "discrimination against one particular type/subset of adults" (and "teenism" the same, only discrimination against a subset of teenagers instead). Ageism would appear to be the correct term in that case, but it usually refers to prejudice/discrimination against the elderly. CameoAppearance ^orate 01:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "adultism" is premised on a similar structure as heterosexism; namely, adultism is a predisposition towards adults, which some see as biased against children, youth, and all young people who aren't addressed or viewed as adults. User:Freechild 19:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that ageism is the more appropriate term, but Wikipedia isn't the place to have that discussion. Wikipedia only needs to know whether the term adultism exists (it does) and what it means (which the article states accurately). The article is properly sourced and is accurate, there is no cause for a bias tag. If you have a problem with people advancing the notion of adultism then complain to the people advancing it, don't flag an article explaining that phenomena. KPalicz 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the facetious alternate term presented above, namely "teenism," the term adultism was not made up today. Instead there is an authentic etymological history and popular usage that extends far beyond one person's imagination. More so, the term ageism is inherently adultist, as those who proclaim it's supercession of the term adultism are clearly deny the necessity of identifying adultism as a legitimate oppression. User:Freechild 04:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not denying its legitimacy (I've been a victim of adultism myself) as a type of oppression. I simply believe that "ageism" would be the better term, etymologically speaking, on parallel with sexism and racism, because what we know as adultism (as well as the discrimination against senior citizens that "ageism" is currently applied to) consists, like sexism and racism, of the oppression of and/or discrimination against one group by another, dominant, group. However, ageism is already taken as a descriptive term, so adultism (similar to the word heterosexism - although that was coined because "sexual-orientationism" or somesuch is awkward and clunky to say) fills that void. CameoAppearance ^orate 22:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to acknowledge that the use of ageism is already appropriately taken, as it describes discrimination related to any age. If I was in the position to choose the word, I would probably go with youthism, or teenism, just like I think the fruit referred to as a cherry would be better addressed as a carmine. However, the simple fact of the matter is that there is an etymological history to adultism that starts at least 30 years ago, and seriously debating re-titling the term would be roughly equivalent to teaching a 3-year-old to enjoy carmines. Freechild 00:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Disappeared?

Is it just my computer, or has this article disappeared? I'm getting a "This article doesn't exsist..." page when it's entered or searched for. The discussion and history pages are still there, but no article. I'm not exactly a wikipedia expert, so I don't know. Cheers, My baloney 11:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Disconcerting. It is gone, without any explanation or history. Freechild 13:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I had to remove some vandalism in the first paragraph, which read: "Those with the common sense of a hamster often do not view adultism as a negative; many 10-year olds are in fact unsuited to fly fighter jets." Purple Is Pretty 00:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree with that phrase. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, unless you have been published in a reliable source, sharing your opinion here is the same as vandalism and directly violates the request inside the talkheader at the top of this page, which clearly states that, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adultism article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Please keep your opinions to yourself, unless they are specifically about improving the article. Thanks. • Freechild'sup? 13:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of Religion

How is that a form of institutionalized adultism? --Armaetin 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if this has nothing to do with your question (it's 3:30 A.M., so I might not be reading your question correctly), but, perhaps forcing children to go to religious institutions like Catholic schools, church, etc. is what you're looking for? --Alexc3 ^(talk) 07:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the forced circumcision among the Jews. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Teenagers and children don't have the right to vote, own property, possess money, buy anything, can't chose who they live with or where they can live (with relatives), no right of association with people (parents choose who they can be with) and don't have every right guaranteed by the US constitution (in the case of American teens). It's just teens are seen as too young, inexperienced in life and immature to behave properly in public or society. + —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.2.206 (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

POV issues

This article seems to assume that adultism is a) an extant phenomenon; b) an undesirable one. Any claims that both of these assumptions are indisputably the views of a large majority need to be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Even then, though, the racism article doesn't take the same negative tone as this one does. As such, I've placed the dreaded {{NPOV}} tag on this article. Powers ^T 18:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your straw man argument assumes a) that the reliable sources cited throughout the article are false; and b) that you are an authority on the topic. With regards to a), you are dismissing the sources cited by denying the existence of adultism. In reference to b) you are interpreting the facts presented, again in dismissal of the citations. I would suggest that you review both of the aforementioned policies. On the basis of those points alone your POV tag is inappropriate; find a authentic and/or real issue within an article before you try to mark it inaccurate. • Freechild'sup? 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

An article can be slanted even if that slant is supported by citations. I've restored the POV tag until we can generate some more discussion and a clear consensus. Powers^T 19:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

However, some topics are simply slanted one way or the other, as your citation of racism shows. If you don't like the so-called "negative-tone" of this article then find citations that support a different perspective; as it stands, tagging a fully-cited article with a POV tag is tantamount to you behaving as an authority. The responsibility for proving the citations at hand to be biased falls on the shoulders of differing citations, which with the topic at hand simply do not exist. You should reconsider your perspective regarding this article. • Freechild'sup? 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I support Freechild's position. LtPowers, I think the burden of proof is on you. If you can't find references that support counter-arguments to the statements in this article, you should at least specify which of these statements violates NPOV. Otherwise, the NPOV tag should be removed.EIFY (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EIFY and Freechild. KPalicz (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Colonel Powers, its been almost a month since you last commented on your NPOV tag, and two editors have shared concerns since then. Your continued silence will indicate consent to remove the tag. • Freechild'sup? 00:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Further passing agreement with the above. forestPIG 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Freechild. The sources are reliable, yes, but they all support anti-adultism, which gives the article a bias. I find it unlikely that there are no reliable sources which support the age of consent, drinking age, driving age, compulsory education, online filters, or the economic dependence of children on adults. And yet, none are cited in the article. I've restored the NPOV tag.bob bobato (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC) + theBOBbobato (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The article heavily implies that any different treatment of children versus adults is a result of intentional discrimination with no other purpose but to keep children subservient to or dependent upon adults. Sourced or not, the implication is preposterous. I see the article has not improved much since I first expressed my concern. Powers ^T 18:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

To my best knowledge, there is no "pro-adultism" argument as supporting biases against children in the social study literature. Bob bobato, you are more than welcomed to add them if you find some, but until then your argument "they all support anti-adultism, which gives the article a bias." doesn't follow. Now, there ARE arguments supporting specific discriminatory measures against children, but they can already be found in their respective articles (e.g. Age of consent reform), where they belong. Moreover, such arguments rarely address the issue of adultism, as far as I know. Again, if you find some, you are more than welcomed to add them. Persistent accusations of NPOV violation without concrete proposals are not constructive to the quality of the article, and reactions are not good substitutes for well-formulated opinions. Again, if no concrete edits or proposals are put forth, the NPOV tag should be removed after certain wait period. EIFY (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there isn't very much adultism social science lit, period. A search on Proquest for 'adultism' only returned 6 results (including 3 newspapers), on EBSCOhost it only appeared 4 times, and on PSYCHarticles it doesn't appear at all. The only academic article which used the word adultism was about Youth Organizations ("Insist or Enlist? Adultism Versus Climates of Excellence"). I suggest that some of the extreme statements in the article be removed, or at least elaborated. In particular I'm thinking about the lists of 'adultisms', with such entries as 'Compulsory education' and 'Literature' , which links to Harry Potter. An acceptable article, for me, would focus on actual child abuse and perhaps artistic/academic negligence, and leave out the 'discrimination' and 'oppression' silliness.theBOBbobato (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

While I am not skeptical about the results you got, Bob bobato, it seems that you were barking up the wrong tree. To the very least, I would expect more of the citations in the article themselves to show up with more comprehensive or targeted search engines, and indeed Google Scholar returned ~690 results. As a matter of fact though, adultism is about discrimination/oppression and there is nothing silly about it. Get rid of that, there will be nothing left by definition. About the list entries you mentioned, I agree that the Harry Potter link is quite a stretch and in general the Culture Adultism part needs some elaboration and counterpoints. However, 'Compulsory education' does belong here, as the current laws distinguish people based on age instead of ability: young people above certain age are free to drop out, and illiterate adults are never forced to go back to school, even though they haven't acquired the skills deemed necessary in the modern society. EIFY (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've skimmed over the adultism articles on Google Scholar, and I find that most of them have a different definition of the term than Wikipedia. Here, adultism is "prejudiced 'discrimination' against minors", but on Google Scholar it's merely "an adult's interpretation of children's behaviours or abilities, and the abuse of adult's power on children". I agree now, most of the examples of adultism in the article are correct, but the given causes are problematic. The article seems to be implying that children are mentally and competently equal to adults, and anything which treats them differently is 'unfair' or 'oppressive', like racism or sexism. That is of course not true, the average child is not as competent as the average adult, and adultism is nothing like racism or sexism. In most cases, Discrimination against social groups is only a problem when the discriminating factors are arbitrary or superficial, like skin colour or sex. Age is not an arbitrary factor, since most minors simply are not as capable as adults due to their less-developed cognitive abilities and lack of experience. A 5 or 8 year can't be trusted to decide if they want to attend school, for example.

I propose that in the article, the causes of adultism should be linked to adults' perception of Youth and Developmentalist theories (such as Piaget and Vygotsky), while keeping most of the examples and making the differences clear between 'common-sense' adultist practices such as the 'Age of Consent', and actual abuses of adult power.theBOBbobato (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some legitimate citations on Google Scholar that define adultism more along the line of discrimination, e.g. "behaviors and attitudes based on the assumptions that adults are better than young people, and entitled to act upon young people without agreement" (mentioned in "The Context of Power -- Young People as Evaluators" - American Journal of Evaluation, 2007). Now, I do agree that the current article goes overboard in certain parts (say, the opening definition) and starts to imply that all children should be treated as adults, which is ridiculous. That said, I have to disagree with the statement that "Age is not an arbitrary factor" and take a more nuanced stance. Yes, a 5 or 8-year-old can't be trusted to make his own decision alone in most conceivable circumstances, but that doesn't mean that a 15 or 17-year-old should also get his freedom stripped in the name of parental rights. In general, adultism is less of a problem for young children since the society's treatment roughly matches their abilities, but more of a problem for adolescents since they in average are getting closer and closer to the competency level of adults, but often times not treated as such -- a nuance not helped by the daily and legal language that bundle everyone under 18 as "child". All said, it seems to me that there is a more established middle ground supported by the literature body, and we should take the article in that direction. I will go ahead and swap out the current opening sentence. EIFY (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

MADD

I added Mothers Against Drunk Driving in the "see also" section, and it was immediately removed. I think a link to the MADD article should be in that section, as MADD is possibly the largest and most influential adultist orgainzation in North America. MADD's agenda isn't one against drunk driving, but one of promoting hatred and prejudice against young people, therefore I think it should be included in that section. 96.21.185.101 (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What about other causes of adultism or teenage depravity: "moralists", social conservatives, "nanny state" types, public education and a majority of churches known for traditional values on teens submit to their parents' authority? It seems to be stronger in the US and western countries about the "moral sanctity" or sacrosanct nature not to challenge legal age of consent or that a 16 year old can have rights a 21 year old can have. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I too support the inclusion of MADD in this article, either as its own section or as a link in the "See Also" section. There is a direct link between their support of adultist policies and police harassment and persecution of people 21 and under in the United States. As a major impetus behind adultist policies and public opinion, MADD deserves inclusion as a concrete example of this phenomenon. Lothar76 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal age

The ultimate act of adultism is states and countries define when is an adult an "adult", such as 18 in the United States (a majority of states have it in their constitutions) and the drinking age remains at 21 for most of the US. The state of California seems to hold the concept of adult age in a strict way, despite how socially liberal that state can be on no-fault divorce (esp. the feminists and women's rights groups support this) in the 1960's and age discrimination (over age 50) laws that strictly prohibit workplace discrimination on older adults or seniors. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)