An interesting youth rights supporter's view on "development"

[Avatar Korra]

A reply to this: http://www.youthrights.org/blog/yr101-2/
I like that this person acknowledges that, along with teens, younger children are also not deserving of invalidation and inferior treatment by adults, and are more capable than we think- even at 7 years old.

Quote:A few reactions:

1. Speaking of ‘developmental differences’ between adults and children is itself problematic in that different children have different capacities at different ages, some of whom exceed the capacities of many or most adults in precisely those areas where adults are said to be more capable.
2. The term “development” must itself be politicized and problematized. It is used as a cudgel to reject demands for children’s rights. Any differences between most children and most adults are viewed as examples of children’s underdevelopment, or adults greater development. The view implied by adopting the language of “development” is that children develop to a higher level once adults, that adults are developed, children, developing. This does not square with the reality however: was inherently imperfect as so-called intelligence tests are, they demonstrate that many areas of human mental capability actually peak in early youth: adults aren’t ‘more developed’, we are all in decline in these measures.
3.Who are these “many” for whom youth rights primarily on teenagers? This implies that there is some large contingent of people who adopt this view, within youth rights. I have not really seen any evidence of that.
4. Only amongst children is lack of capability or capacity thought to logically reduce the ability to refuse intervention and control of others. I am unable to fly a plane competently and as such I should not be licensed to do so, but my lack of flying capability or flying development does not imply that those who can fly planes may abduct me and fly me to locations against my will. This is however exactly what we are asked to believe with children. If we accept that say, a particular 7 year old child is not competent to live on her own (and we might legitimately question if a properly educated 7 year old couldn’t live on her own in reality, if education to do so was provided, if maybe a weekly cleaner or something was provided, if the proper adjustments were made, such as counter heights within her easy reach – the type of adjustments that are necessary for people with certain sorts of disabilities for example.) it does not follow that she shouldn’t be able to choose who she lives with (providing they consent), or that she shouldn’t be able to set her own bed time, to decide what books she reads and what television programs she watches, to decide how much time she spends on the internet, whether she attends church and if so which one, and so forth. Even if a care taker was absolutely necessary (as it very much may be before 4 years old for example) there is no reason why that care taker should have ultimate sovereignty over that child anymore than the caretakers many elderly people rely on are granted powers of them. The differences in development are trotted out as a trump card against those who would liberate children from their current thoroughly dominated status. But this makes no sense.

5. To the extent that relevant developmental differences (that are not accounted for by lack of education that could be provided for example), they should motivate us to adjust public space and social expectations in such a way that accommodates children’s differences, in the same way that we do for disabled people, rather than using it as an excuse to justify continued domination of children.

[The man]

Beautiful

[The man]

Just put it on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/YouthRights/com...s_view_on/