promethea.incorporated

shlevy:

socialjusticemunchkin:

shlevy:

socialjusticemunchkin:

ilzolende:

socialjusticemunchkin:

dagny-hashtaggart:

shlevy:

While you live in my house, you’ll follow my rules!

I won’t let you choose another place to live, even if the people who own it are willing. My house, my rules!

I’ll strictly control what skills you develop and resources you amass that are relevant to being able to live on your own. My house, my rules!

I’ll deny permissions legally required to get a license or a job that I don’t want you to get. My house, my rules!

If you manage to get out of the house anyway, I’ll call on the government to force you to come back. My house, my rules!

I was thinking about this idea while reading Wisconsin v. Yoder, and specifically William Douglas’ dissent. Yoder is a classic free exercise case: it concerned a law mandating education (public or private) through high school, pitting the interest of the state in seeing to it that its citizens were educated against the right of Amish parents to not violate their traditions and beliefs. The Supreme Court sided with the Amish.

Justice Douglas’ dissent centered on the argument that there were three parties whose interests in this dispute were relevant, not two. Basically, “has anyone thought to ask the kids what they think?”

To be specific, there’s one party whose interests in this dispute are relevant. Both of the other interests are basically bullshit.

OTOH, the party whose interests are most relevant is also typically significantly cognitively impaired, has atypically high time preference, is not legally permitted to have a job and financially support themself, and so on.

Yes, that’s true, and that’s why someone else usually has to try to take care of their interests, but that doesn’t mean the caretakers’ interests are in any way valid; only their attempt to faithfully act in accordance of the only relevant party’s interests is.

The state can go [do something it can’t actually do because it doesn’t have anatomy] with its interests about its citizens; the child’s interests to be educated or not are what matter.

And the parents can go [do something they are probably religiously prohibited from doing] with their tradition; their ability to (possibly, depending on the circumstances; oftentimes they do, sometimes they don’t, and that’s why shit’s hard) know their child’s interests better than the state is the thing that matters.

I mean, I’m pretty strongly pro child’s rights, but the idea that a guardian has no interests in the matter is absurd. Being a guardian doesn’t (and shouldn’t) mean you’re a slave to your child’s Optimal Best Interest, and I certainly don’t want the state deciding what that is even if it did.

E.g. sometimes I may need to shower even if Colton really wants to be held and will scream the whole time if I don’t. And I could forgo the shower, and he would be better off in the moment if I did. But I’m not obligated to just because I’m his guardian.

Okay, that’s firmly within “your body, your rules” imo. Being a guardian only gives a reasonable set of obligations.

I don’t consider children entitled to limitless bending-over backwards, but I do consider them entitled to certain freedoms; for example if a parent for some reason had decided that preventing their child from accessing information on lgbtq people was in their interests of ~religion~ and ~tradition~, they should basically cuck off with their interests. Violating a child’s self-determination and choice requires way better reasons than “but I wanna”, but a child isn’t entitled to violate their parent’s self-determination and choice for frivoulous reasons either.

In the example where the options (school or homeschooling) are both basically legitimate I wouldn’t consider either of the offered arguments a valid reason for deciding differently from what the child would choose. There are possible reasons to override the child’s choice on this matter, but neither “the state wants its citizens to be this way” or “the parents want religion/tradition” are acceptable to me. (The parents are certainly allowed to freely express their views to persuade their child but if the child wants something else I do consider it a violation of the child’s freedom of religion to forcibly convert them or make them follow the rules of a religion that isn’t theirs.)

(ETA: the distinction I’m talking about at least somewhat resembles “negative vs. positive rights”)

… I mean if you’re going to go with negative vs positive rights at all then you’ve basically abolished the entire concept of guardianship. Which, like, is theoretically satisfying but completely ignores the actual nature of actual children.

Also I think we need to distinguish “the things we want the government to stay out of” from “the things that don’t violate children’s rights” from “the things that are immoral as a parent”. IMO the 1st is larger than the second at least given current form of government, and the 2nd is larger than the 3rd, but even the third has a lot of degrees of freedom that revolve around parents actually making choices for children.

I mean “it resembles” in the way that it seems to have something similar; not that it’s actually that much about the same thing. But I do think that overall parents are erring way too much on limiting minors’ freedom and the criteria for “you aren’t allowed to do that”/”you must do this” should be stricter than “just because I want and I’m in a position of power”.

And the degree of should obviously depends on the situation; the state needs to heck off most of the time (the exact degree of hecking off should change though; less policing of “do parents act like a domestic NSA in the name of “””safety”””?” and more protection of children’s bodily autonomy against assault and abuse and I don’t know whether the total would consequently be significantly lesser or somewhat greater but it would be better) and I don’t subscribe to the authoritarian theory which treats all valid targets of politics as valid targets of state action.

So in the original question, if the child wants to go to an external school but the parents want to homeschool, they would need to come up with a better argument than “it’s our religion/tradition”. And similarly if the child wants to homeschool and parents are willing (if parents aren’t, then it’s remarkably simple) to do it, the state would need to have something much more solid than “muh social engineering tho”. There obviously are questions where parents’ interests are relevant but I don’t accept either of these particular arguments (unless they were just abbreviated very harshly and the originals in the court case were way more relevant).

1 week ago · tagged #youth rights · 151 notes · source: shlevy · .permalink

shlevy:

socialjusticemunchkin:

ilzolende:

socialjusticemunchkin:

dagny-hashtaggart:

shlevy:

While you live in my house, you’ll follow my rules!

I won’t let you choose another place to live, even if the people who own it are willing. My house, my rules!

I’ll strictly control what skills you develop and resources you amass that are relevant to being able to live on your own. My house, my rules!

I’ll deny permissions legally required to get a license or a job that I don’t want you to get. My house, my rules!

If you manage to get out of the house anyway, I’ll call on the government to force you to come back. My house, my rules!

I was thinking about this idea while reading Wisconsin v. Yoder, and specifically William Douglas’ dissent. Yoder is a classic free exercise case: it concerned a law mandating education (public or private) through high school, pitting the interest of the state in seeing to it that its citizens were educated against the right of Amish parents to not violate their traditions and beliefs. The Supreme Court sided with the Amish.

Justice Douglas’ dissent centered on the argument that there were three parties whose interests in this dispute were relevant, not two. Basically, “has anyone thought to ask the kids what they think?”

To be specific, there’s one party whose interests in this dispute are relevant. Both of the other interests are basically bullshit.

OTOH, the party whose interests are most relevant is also typically significantly cognitively impaired, has atypically high time preference, is not legally permitted to have a job and financially support themself, and so on.

Yes, that’s true, and that’s why someone else usually has to try to take care of their interests, but that doesn’t mean the caretakers’ interests are in any way valid; only their attempt to faithfully act in accordance of the only relevant party’s interests is.

The state can go [do something it can’t actually do because it doesn’t have anatomy] with its interests about its citizens; the child’s interests to be educated or not are what matter.

And the parents can go [do something they are probably religiously prohibited from doing] with their tradition; their ability to (possibly, depending on the circumstances; oftentimes they do, sometimes they don’t, and that’s why shit’s hard) know their child’s interests better than the state is the thing that matters.

I mean, I’m pretty strongly pro child’s rights, but the idea that a guardian has no interests in the matter is absurd. Being a guardian doesn’t (and shouldn’t) mean you’re a slave to your child’s Optimal Best Interest, and I certainly don’t want the state deciding what that is even if it did.

E.g. sometimes I may need to shower even if Colton really wants to be held and will scream the whole time if I don’t. And I could forgo the shower, and he would be better off in the moment if I did. But I’m not obligated to just because I’m his guardian.

Okay, that’s firmly within “your body, your rules” imo. Being a guardian only gives a reasonable set of obligations.

I don’t consider children entitled to limitless bending-over backwards, but I do consider them entitled to certain freedoms; for example if a parent for some reason had decided that preventing their child from accessing information on lgbtq people was in their interests of ~religion~ and ~tradition~, they should basically cuck off with their interests. Violating a child’s self-determination and choice requires way better reasons than “but I wanna”, but a child isn’t entitled to violate their parent’s self-determination and choice for frivoulous reasons either.

In the example where the options (school or homeschooling) are both basically legitimate I wouldn’t consider either of the offered arguments a valid reason for deciding differently from what the child would choose. There are possible reasons to override the child’s choice on this matter, but neither “the state wants its citizens to be this way” or “the parents want religion/tradition” are acceptable to me. (The parents are certainly allowed to freely express their views to persuade their child but if the child wants something else I do consider it a violation of the child’s freedom of religion to forcibly convert them or make them follow the rules of a religion that isn’t theirs.)

(ETA: the distinction I’m talking about at least somewhat resembles “negative vs. positive rights”)

1 week ago · tagged #youth rights · 151 notes · source: shlevy · .permalink

ilzolende:

immanentizingeschatons:

fierceawakening:

that-random-blog-posts:

fredericksergievsky:

leweegee:

2oulle22-lover:

ghostedarmy:

aggressivelytwerkinganderson:

thegodaesthetic:

jewishwitch:

a-kir-a:

ichristyg:

eviltessmacher:

theactualjensenackles:

teenagefrankzhang:

So my dad took away my laptop because I wouldn’t give him the password. I wasn’t even allowed to type it in, he demanded to know the password to my personal computer because he thinks I’m “ doing things I’m not supposed to do. ” My sister is not, and never has been, held to the same standard when it came to passwords on her own phone etc. But my parents always suspect me of being “up to something” and will randomly ask to use my computer/ know the password, and when I say no, they get mad at me. In the past, they have taken away my devices and looked through them, which cased me a lot of anxiety and is part of the reason I don’t like it when people use my computer or go through the camera roll on my phone. Even as I type this, I’m being asked what I’m doing. If you think parents demanding to know the passwords to their child’s personal devices is a breach of privacy please reblog

my parents do the same thing it’s torture

As a parent, you don’t get privacy until you are on your own. My house, my rules, my money, my decision.

Don’t like it?

Too bad.

I am the parent here. I’m not your friend. I’m your father.

Literally kids are not your prisoner??? There’s a difference between being protective and being controlling.

“You don’t get privacy until you’re an adult” like what the fuck. You’re one of those piece of shit parents that thinks taking away bedroom doors and making their kids hold sandwich board signs on busy roads is appropriate punishment aren’t you?
Children and teens are still fucking people and still deserve respect. If you can’t even respect your child how do you expect to teach them to respect others?

AS A PARENT YOU DON’T GET PRIVACY UNTIL YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. If I suspect you’re doing drugs or talking to someone way older than you or sneaking out at night, your privacy becomes my business. You’re living under MY roof, and I bought that computer, that phone, and pay for the service that runs it. Sorry, Charlie. It’s my job as a parent to make sure you’re safe and I will exercise the UNALIENABLE right to invade your privacy.

The mindset parents have of “my house my rules / I bought you that phonecomputertabletetc so I can go through it” is a huge contributer to anxiety, depression, self harm, and suicide in kids and teens and if anyone is defending, condoning, or practicing that behavior I hope to god they get their kids taken away from them. Nobody deserves to grow up under an iron fist of emotional abuse.

dude it’s one thing to be looking out for your kid and another to be like “privacy doesn’t exist because you are vulnerable and i am in a position of power.

being overprotective of your kid is NOT going to help them. it’s fucking savage.

my mom let my sisters and i do whatever we wanted [obvs within reason] and punished us when we did bad shit and we came out just fine. we’re honest people and nothing fucked us up. my friend with overprotective and invasive parents? she sneaks out for a social life. she can’t let people touch her things without almost crying because her dad would confiscate her things as she was using them to make sure she wasn’t selling drugs or sexting. sometimes she compulsively lies about small things and admits to lying later because she knows it’s was stupid to do it in the first place and she developed OCD from her father reprimanding her for not being clean enough [even though she’s a spotless person] she will have anxiety attacks over being in a messy environment because of the panic her dad put into her while growing up. she’s almost twenty and you know what she did? she asked me to cover for her so she could go on a date. SHE IS TWENTY NEXT MONTH AND ASKED ME TO LIE TO HER PARENTS IF THEY ASKED ME WHERE SHE WAS. she was on a date!! dating! because she was afraid her dad would fucking ground her. the sad part is, he probably would have if he found out! they created an environment of distrust and she has to fight it to be able to hang out with people who weren’t even gonna get her in trouble.

yall wanna be like “privacy doesn’t exist for children and teens. no teens can be trusted.” but fact is, you’re gonna force your kid into being untrustworthy because you think it’s healthy to be controlling.

sorry. you’re a shitty parent. unless you have proof or grounds for violating privacy in order to keep your kid safe, you are abusive and controlling and a sack of shit for having 0 respect for your children.

My dad threatens to take my door away from me for having it closed. I’m a seventeen year old female, and he has threatened to take away my door.

when i was a teenager, i wasn’t allowed to have a cellphone, so my father would hand me a little bag of change and force me to call home from a payphone every single time i left somewhere and again when i arrived at the next place. that means if i went to the mall, i called when i got there. then if i wanted to go across the street to the Walmart i had to call and tell him so. then i had to call again when i got to the Walmart! if i had a bunch of stuff to do, i could go through the entire bag of change in one weekend - if i could even find enough payphones to call him from. his explanation for this lunacy was that he wanted to be able to find me anytime, anywhere. he also liked to randomly show up at my job to make sure i was there, and the first time i spent the night at my best friend’s after i got a car, he drove past the house no less than eight times, and called no less than four times. one of those calls was to ask where i was because my car wasn’t visible from the road - and when i explained the turnaround i was parked in was behind the house, he told me we’d “better not go anywhere or have friends over”. like, what the hell were we going to do? have a drunken orgy while my friend’s grandma was sitting in the next room? we ended up playing chess in the front parlor all night with all the lights on and the curtains open so he could see us if he drove by.

and what, exactly, did i do to deserve this? not a fucking thing. i didn’t drink, didn’t smoke, didn’t sneak out, didn’t do drugs, didn’t skip school, nothing. in 13 years of public school, i had one detention - for being late too many times. that’s it. i never did a single thing to make him think i was untrustworthy and i got stalked for it.

when i graduated high school, my father told me if i was going to go to art college on his dime, he was going to have a say in the classes i took and what i did with my free time - he even went so far as to tell me if he ever dropped by the campus, i’d better be in my dorm doing homework or in class, and if i got a grade he didn’t like, he was going to pull me out of school, bring me home, and basically keep me a prisoner with no phone, no tv, no visits with friends until i graduated from the local community college. faced with another four years of stalking and abuse, i moved out and worked in a factory until i could be considered an independent student, then went to the art college i’d always wanted to - on my terms.

my father died last May and i hadn’t talked to him for a year, hadn’t seen him for two, and before that i hadn’t had any communication with him at all for four.

the moral of the story for you “my house, my rules, you don’t get any rights” parents is: stop treating your children like shit or you’re going to die alone, and you’ll deserve it.

…god, this is too real. i find myself often making up small, unnecessary lies when dealing with others, as long as it will help me avoid conflict or anger. my parents trained that behavior into me by abusing their position of power my entire life, controlling almost every step of it down to the most minute detail. if parents refuse to respect their kids as they would other human beings, the kids will never mirror that in return—funny, since so many parents demand it

not to mention that this mentality - which is the dominant one, by the way, which is incredibly disturbing - provides an excuse and convenient coverup for MILLIONS of abusive parents who will never be questioned because people will always assume that “the parent is the boss, and the child is lying and/or deserves this punishment” and look no further

it’s a matter of holding existing power structures over you dependent’s head and that’s just not fucking okay

“you are dependent on me, therefore i get to abuse you and isolate you at will, you are at my mercy” is all i can hear

on multiple occasions, i had my phone taken from me by my father “because i didn’t pay for it so it wasn’t mine” when i was never given the OPTION to pay for it in the first place. he also took it from me to stop me from calling the police or other help more than once when he was physically abusing and threatening my mom, my brother, and myself.

your child is a human being and is entitled to privacy, respect, and agency. they did not ask to be dependent on you; YOU chose to raise them until they were able to become independent.

and aside from that, it’s fucking ridiculous to trust an adult’s word over that of their dependent child on the basis of age. that’s how abuse gets swept under the rug.

parents with potentially or blatantly abusive/manipulative behaviors and expectations regarding their children should be treated with exactly the same amount of suspicion as an abusive partner. they shouldn’t get away with traumatizing their children in their developing stages just because they’re “adults” and they “own” their child.

children are not objects, you do not own them, you are supposed to be supporting and teaching them, but you aren’t allowed to conveniently forget that they’re human beings with exactly as many basic human rights as you have.

^^ These posts are something that more people especially adults should see.

Also the stuff 2oule is talking about is classic abuser/stalker behavior. People don’t stop being abusers because they happen to be moms and dads and Parents Are Responsible

ABOLISH THE FAMILY

(I’m only, like, a third joking)

[bans child labor/supports an existing ban on child labor]

[bans/supports bans on minors from having bank accounts in their own names alone]

You’re not supporting yourself! You’re a dependent! My resources, my rules!

Yeah, if a person in a position of non-consensual authority is acting abusively, it’s their own damn fault if they die alone, and I’m just sad that usually the victims can’t do anything worse than making them die alone. We abolished slavery over 150 years ago, shouldn’t we get around to abolishing unchallenged parental authority just as well?

If I had my own security provider, I’d totally let minors sign up for protection from their parents the instant they are old enough to find the website or call the company. People are not fucking property and providing food and shelter to your kidnapping victim (who can’t go find someone else to provide those things better because you’re protecting your monopoly with violence) doesn’t entitle you to treat them however you wish.

(via ilzolende)

1 week ago · tagged #youth rights · 218,394 notes · source: romanzhang · .permalink

ilzolende:

socialjusticemunchkin:

dagny-hashtaggart:

shlevy:

While you live in my house, you’ll follow my rules!

I won’t let you choose another place to live, even if the people who own it are willing. My house, my rules!

I’ll strictly control what skills you develop and resources you amass that are relevant to being able to live on your own. My house, my rules!

I’ll deny permissions legally required to get a license or a job that I don’t want you to get. My house, my rules!

If you manage to get out of the house anyway, I’ll call on the government to force you to come back. My house, my rules!

I was thinking about this idea while reading Wisconsin v. Yoder, and specifically William Douglas’ dissent. Yoder is a classic free exercise case: it concerned a law mandating education (public or private) through high school, pitting the interest of the state in seeing to it that its citizens were educated against the right of Amish parents to not violate their traditions and beliefs. The Supreme Court sided with the Amish.

Justice Douglas’ dissent centered on the argument that there were three parties whose interests in this dispute were relevant, not two. Basically, “has anyone thought to ask the kids what they think?”

To be specific, there’s one party whose interests in this dispute are relevant. Both of the other interests are basically bullshit.

OTOH, the party whose interests are most relevant is also typically significantly cognitively impaired, has atypically high time preference, is not legally permitted to have a job and financially support themself, and so on.

Yes, that’s true, and that’s why someone else usually has to try to take care of their interests, but that doesn’t mean the caretakers’ interests are in any way valid; only their attempt to faithfully act in accordance of the only relevant party’s interests is.

The state can go [do something it can’t actually do because it doesn’t have anatomy] with its interests about its citizens; the child’s interests to be educated or not are what matter.

And the parents can go [do something they are probably religiously prohibited from doing] with their tradition; their ability to (possibly, depending on the circumstances; oftentimes they do, sometimes they don’t, and that’s why shit’s hard) know their child’s interests better than the state is the thing that matters.

(via ilzolende)

1 week ago · tagged #youth rights · 151 notes · source: shlevy · .permalink

dagny-hashtaggart:

shlevy:

While you live in my house, you’ll follow my rules!

I won’t let you choose another place to live, even if the people who own it are willing. My house, my rules!

I’ll strictly control what skills you develop and resources you amass that are relevant to being able to live on your own. My house, my rules!

I’ll deny permissions legally required to get a license or a job that I don’t want you to get. My house, my rules!

If you manage to get out of the house anyway, I’ll call on the government to force you to come back. My house, my rules!

I was thinking about this idea while reading Wisconsin v. Yoder, and specifically William Douglas’ dissent. Yoder is a classic free exercise case: it concerned a law mandating education (public or private) through high school, pitting the interest of the state in seeing to it that its citizens were educated against the right of Amish parents to not violate their traditions and beliefs. The Supreme Court sided with the Amish.

Justice Douglas’ dissent centered on the argument that there were three parties whose interests in this dispute were relevant, not two. Basically, “has anyone thought to ask the kids what they think?”

To be specific, there’s one party whose interests in this dispute are relevant. Both of the other interests are basically bullshit.

(via ilzolende)

1 week ago · tagged #youth rights · 151 notes · source: shlevy · .permalink

shlevy:

While you live in my house, you’ll follow my rules!

I won’t let you choose another place to live, even if the people who own it are willing. My house, my rules!

I’ll strictly control what skills you develop and resources you amass that are relevant to being able to live on your own. My house, my rules!

I’ll deny permissions legally required to get a license or a job that I don’t want you to get. My house, my rules!

If you manage to get out of the house anyway, I’ll call on the government to force you to come back. My house, my rules!

Seriously, this is some of the creepiest shit in the US, along with the private prisons.

The government basically enforces something very close to slavery for minors, even going as far as to explicitly allow assaulting and torturing and kidnapping them and protects the abusers from consequences with violent force. That’s some shit that shouldn’t ever fly anywhere.

At least our nordic nanny states technically ban assaulting one’s child, even if it isn’t that enforced. For all their restrictions on people’s freedom, they at least apply them also to those who are the most likely and inevitably in positions of illegitimate and coercive authority.

(via shieldfoss)

3 weeks ago · tagged #youth rights #abuse cw #every sin begins from treating people as product · 151 notes · source: shlevy · .permalink