Remembering Shulamith Firestone and Carrying Forth Her Youth Rights Feminist Vision

   Shulamith Firestone, who died recently, did not use the words "youth rights feminism" to describe her worldview, but it was certainly the view of the world she presented in her second wave feminist class The Dialectic of Sex (published in 1970). Firestone was a radical who believed that what was natural was not necessarily human - she advocated for artificial reproductive technologies to free women from the burdens of biology and for contraception to give women more control over their bodies and their lives. (In particular, she supported the creation of artificial wombs and the abolition of pregnancy which she described as "barbaric.") She advocated for a classless society in which resources were distributed fairly. She spoke out against racism and called attention to the ways in which African-American men often failed to speak to the interests and realities of African-American women. She wrote about the ways in which women are conditioned to view culture through a male lens and thus lose the ability to authentically experience the world as women. But her most radical idea was probably the one that has been paid the least attention - that childhood in its current incarnation is oppressive to both children and women and must be radically reconstituted.

   In the space of the thirty pages of the fourth chapter of The Dialectic of Sex, entitled "Down with Childhood," Firestone begins by seeking to prove that childhood as we know it is a social construct designed to serve patriarchal ideals. Drawing heavily on the work of historian Philippe Aries, Firestone traces the advent of contemporary notions of childhood to the rise of schools and the nuclear family. She then lays out the case for children as an oppressed class - she decries the age segregation and repression of educational institutions, bemoans children's economic powerlessness, laments children's sexual repression, and lambasts the educators, psychologists, social workers, and other adults tasked with managing children and their lives. She sees children as an oppressed class - one whose oppression rests in both their physical limitations and their enforced subservience to adults. Finally, Firestone connects the oppression of children to the oppression of women. She attacks the ideology of motherhood which stipulates that children are delicate flowers in need of constant supervision and identifies this view as serving the interests of the patriarchy, not the interests of mothers or children. She contends that the supposedly special bond between women and children is "no more than shared oppression."

   Against the backdrop of a feminist landscape in which childfree feminists frequently resort to ageist attacks on children to justify their choices while other people tell women they're unfit mothers if they're not having natural births, breastfeeding for years at a time, and wholly giving themselves over physically and psychologically to their role as mothers, Shulamith Firestone's vision is needed now more than ever. In a world in which children are increasingly cut off from the rest of the world, where legislation and school zero tolerance policies affecting youth grow more restrictive and confining, and where the socially prescribed demands on mothers grow more onerous, where most American feminist activism on behalf of children both here and abroad is more concerned with paternalistically controlling young people than liberating them, Firestone's vision of an anti-sexist, anti-ageist society is a light in the darkness, showing us that there is a better way than the visions of childhood and the family presented to us by both the mainstream culture and the majority of third wave feminism.

   Because of her radical vision of freedom for children and women (as well as poor people and people of color) Firestone will always be someone I have the greatest respect and admiration for. She was a part of the generation of feminists who bequeathed a legacy of greater reproductive freedom, more opportunity in the workforce, and a less constraining image of what it means to be a woman to people of my generation. While that work is far from over, we have come a long way from where we were and Firestone and many of other women (and a few men) from that generation are the main reason why. But youth rights is the unfinished business on Firestone's agenda where we haven't come that far at all - in fact, in most ways we have gone backward and it hurts not only children but parents (especially mothers) as well. That is the agenda of this blog and the cause I am the most passionate about.

   On a personal note, Shulamith Firestone was one of the first thinkers on youth rights issues that I ever read. After encountering a number of misogynistic supposed youth rights supporters as well as many supposed feminists who were all too eager to deny the autonomy they cherished for themselves to those younger than they are, Firestone's work was a revelation. We've all seen the bumper stickers, buttons, and the like that say "Pro-Woman, Pro-Child, Pro-Choice." Firestone was truly all of these things in the most radical and liberating way possible. When I label myself and other pro-woman, pro-youth individuals as youth rights feminists, I see us as working in a tradition that starts with Shulamith Firestone. Rest in peace, radical sister.

How Ageism Destroys the Family, How Youth Rights Can Heal Our Broken Family Bonds

   When we speak of youth rights and the benefits that will accrue to people of all ages when we live in a more anti-ageist society, we tend to focus mostly on the many horrible abuses against youth that will be prevented. Teachers won't be able to abuse their power so easily, violating the rights of their students and sometimes even jeopardizing their futures. Parents will no longer be legally allowed to assault and batter their children. Youth will be able to consent to or refuse medical care of all kinds on their own terms. People will no longer be arrested for consensual sexual activity simply because of their age or the age of their partner. Young people will no longer be denied the right to work and keep their own money. Governments and parents will no longer unilaterally dictate to youth where they must attend school. This list could go on and on and on.

   All of these things are good and important. All of them are a major part of why I am a youth rights supporter. But I'm not just a radical youth liberationist because I believe that the worst abuses against youth will be curtailed in a society with less ageism. I am also a radical youth liberationist because I believe that youth and adults, parents and children, teachers and students - will have more meaningful, sincere, loving, and respectful relationships in a pro-youth society than they currently do today.

   In this particular post I want to focus on the the parent-child relationship although much of what I say could apply to other adult-youth relationships. But I am focusing here on this particular relationship because it tends to be lifelong and of paramount importance to all involved. Therefore, it will also be the adult-youth relationship most dramatically affected by a reform in society's attitudes towards childhood and adulthood.

   This satirical article from The Onion caused me to begin thinking about all of the ways in which ageism hurts children and their parents as individuals and as a family unit. While I laughed at the piece, it brought up some uncomfortable truths that I have noticed my entire life. Although we tend to see these trends as normal, we shouldn't - they are a symptom of ageism and the dysfunctional relationships that ageist ways of thinking produce.

   Personally, I have always had a close relationship with my parents and my aunt (who has lived next door to my parents my entire life and has been much closer to a third parent than a relative where I'm concerned). They know about my friends, my romantic relationships (with both men and women), my political views, what hobbies I enjoy, the people in my life I can't stand, and my aspirations for the future. When I go to the doctor I want their input about what questions I should ask him. I like them knowing my friends and the people I date. I even like them knowing that I've made some choices they wouldn't make themselves and that I believe some things they don't agree with because I want the people in my life that I'm closest to to know and love the real me.

   Over the years I have realized that such a relationship between parents and their children is incredibly rare once children reach their teenage years and that the relationship rarely fully recovers even once the child is an adult. This should sadden us greatly - most people that choose to have children don't do so because they want a distant relationship with people they know little of substance about. They enter into such a relationship with the best of intentions, only to watch themselves and their children grow more distant from each other as the years pass.

   Since graduating from high school and becoming a legal adult, I have watched people I otherwise respected and admired go to pathetic lengths to avoid their parents finding out things that even casual acquaintances knew about them. One ex-boyfriend went to considerable trouble to hide his sexual relationship with me from his parents despite the fact that we were both extremely responsible about preventing pregnancy and STDs, were well into our twenties, and had dated for quite a while. One friend has refused to tell her parents that she is a transsexual despite having taken hormones for years and looking in every way like the woman she has worked hard to become. Other friends have taken pains to keep their parents from knowing that they hold religious, political, or other views which their parents do not share. These families are by no means extraordinarily oppressive or abusive - they would be regarded by most people as normal families and yet in the context of any other important human relationship, keeping secrets of this nature from people one loves would be seen as extremely problematic, even dysfunctional. So why does this happen and why are we, individually and collectively, willing to tolerate it?

   Almost every institution in our culture sends parents and children alike the message that their relationship is supposed to be an adversarial one. Parents are supposed to perform parenthood by laying down rules, punishing their children when they transgress them, and generally seeking to "keep their kids in line." Children are supposed to perform their role (both as minors and later as adult children) by attempting to subvert these rules, sneaking behind their parents' backs to do things their parents disapprove of, and keeping secrets from their families. If parents and/or children aren't following this script, we perceive something as being somewhat "off" about them despite the fact that the script itself is inherently oppressive to both parties and makes no sense if the goal is to foster open, honest, loving relationships among parents and children.

   This is where youth rights comes in. Youth rights supporters do not believe in double standards - a list of things it is necessarily okay for adults to do but necessarily wrong for younger people to do. We do not believe in a parent-child relationship where parents have to give permission for everything their child does as a minor and then give approval for the child's adult decisions only if it matches the parents' expectations. We don't believe that children are quasi-property whose decisions always reflect on their parents. We do believe that the hypocrisy, cynicism, and disingenuous nature of the current model of parent-child relationships serves neither parents nor children.

   Basically our society tells young people that they're weird if they have more than an acquaintanceship with their parents. If they really let their parents in on their feelings and beliefs as they do with their friends, they're doing something wrong. Similarly, parents are taught that if they aren't freaking out at even the slightest suggestion of sexual activity, drinking, drug use, swearing, anger, or disagreement of any kind coming from their offspring (often even after the children are adults themselves!!!) they are failing to perform the role of parenthood responsibly. This model, while widely prevalent in American culture, sets children (including both minor and adult children) and parents alike up to fail. It encourages repression and insincerity in what should ideally be a relationship forged around the concept of unconditional love. The good news is that, as dismal as the situation is, we can do better.

   Young people, when possible (and I know it always isn't), have to insist that their parents love them for who they really are, not who they pretend to be around their families. This, of course, is not by itself enough. That is because in our society parents still have the power, money, and social capital that their children lack. So it is chiefly up to them to unlearn the antagonistic model of parenting taught in our society and instead begin to see their children of all ages as equals - people whose choices they may not always agree with but whom they are prepared to love, accept, respect, and support anyway.

   It is important to note that there is a precedent for radically reinventing family relationships in our society through a combination of political/legal/economic and sociocultural reform. Feminism did not destroy the relationships between men and women, husbands and wives, whatever certain individuals on the far right may claim to the contrary. Instead it made these relationships more mutual, more voluntary, and perhaps in many ways more loving. Similarly I believe that the youth rights movement will ultimately strengthen parent-child relationships as opposed to destroying them.

   As a youth rights supporter, I believe in abolishing guardianship because it is a terrible injustice when youth are forced to stay in family situations that prove unfulfilling or even intolerable simply because of a legal construct known as custody. I want youth in abusive and oppressive situations to have the option of getting out of those situations without being forced into something worse. I also want youth in positive family situations to know that even then they have rights over themselves that no adult, including their parents, can violate. These legal and political changes will be important, but they aren't the whole story.

   I also want these legal/political changes to be accompanied by changes in attitudes that ensure that parents would be less oppressive and abusive towards their children, even if they could, because their consciences would tell them that this is wrong and the messages they received from society would be that their children should be treated with respect for their autonomy. The same social changes which would make it easier for children to distance themselves from their families would also hopefully make this distancing less necessary.

   As a radical youth rights supporter, I don't just want to demolish guardianship, minority, compulsory education, status offenses, and all of the other evils blighting the lives of youth. I also want to replace them with more sincere and loving connections between parents and children, students and teachers, adults and youth in general. As movements for the rights of women, people of color, LGBT people, senior citizens, and disabled people have learned again and again over the years, it isn't enough to change laws. We must also change hearts and minds. Sometimes this may be easier than changing laws and other times it may be harder. But it will always be necessary if we truly want to create a society where neither adults nor children are oppressed and both are free to pursue the healthiest relationships that they can, including across generational lines and within the family. Youth rights is both child liberation and parent liberation.

Mama and me.

The Roundup

   There are so many important youth rights stories I have seen circulating recently, I wanted to publish a new edition of The Roundup ASAP.

   First of all, if you haven't seen The Adult Privilege Checklist you should check it out. It really puts youth oppression in black and white.

   The Little League World Series is going on and ESPN's coverage has been extremely respectful and non-ageist as far as these young athletes are concerned.

   This story about a young transgender man now ten years old (who first came out as a toddler) shows us that even our youngest youth know what they need to be happy, healthy, and successful if we adults are willing to support them. The article says that this young man's mother got a "lesson in love." I think it should also provide an equally important lesson in respecting the identity and bodily autonomy of people regardless of their age.

   This mother of an Autistic young person understands that non-disabled parents' interests are not always the same as that of their disabled children. Although she doesn't talk about this in the article, the same could be said of all parents and all youth.

   These pictures of youth on leashes underscores both the dehumanization and obsession with control attached to youth by their adult guardians in an ageist society.

The Roundup

It's been awhile since I've posted - I've been dealing with some medical issues and watching the Olympics. However, I'm back and ready to bring y'all some more radical youth rights theory. I'm starting right now with links to some important youth rights stories, including those celebrating our nation's youngest Olympic heroes who defy the demeaning stereotype that young people are incapable of the focus needed for serious achievement.

Olympic gold medalists in gymnastics Gabby Douglas (16), Jordyn Wieber (17), McKayla Maroney (16), Aly Raisman (18), and Kyla Ross (15) show the amazing accomplishments young women are capable of despite living in a society that denies them their full civil and human rights. These amazing individuals all began training in elementary school.

Katie Ledecky (15) is an Olympic swimming champion and the youngest Olympian in all of Team USA. 

Missy Franklin (17) is another amazing Olympic gold medal-winning swimmer. 

On a less inspiring note, Virgin Airlines is providing an example of what I mean when I talk about age apartheid.

My friend and an incredible youth rights theorist, Katrina Moncure, has written an excellent blog post problematizing the ageist social panic surrounding young women supposedly reaching puberty earlier.

A small but to my knowledge largely unprecedented step in the right direction on youth rights from the Canadian legal system.

Disability rights activist Lydia Brown, who I got to meet for the first time recently, has written a beautiful blog post about her disability rights advocacy which sums up a lot of my own feelings about my advocacy on youth rights issues. Lydia is a brilliant theorist when it comes to disability rights issues and I encourage all of you to check out her blog.

Parenting Is Not a Qualification for Talking About Youth Rights Issues, It is a Conflict of Interests

   Since becoming involved with youth liberation, I have encountered an attitude from a number of parents that has consistently left me baffled. They have expressed this attitude in a variety of ways that probably sounded like fine rhetoric to the person making the statements but which has consistently struck me as either disingenuous or betraying a deep lack of understanding of what youth liberation is really about. Here is a sampling of the sort of statements to which I refer: "As a parent I am on the frontlines of advocating for children while you are dealing with theory." (This might be less disingenuous coming from someone that attempts to put some sort of youth autonomy-centered philosophy at the core of their parenting, but alas this person was not such a parent.) "As a parent, I can speak to my child's need for boundaries and discipline." "You'll feel differently when you are a parent." These statements are not only a prime example of the authoritarian impulses of the people making them, they are also patently absurd upon reflection. This is because parenting is not a qualification for discussing the rights of youth, it is a conflict of interest.

   One is often seen as bolstering his case when he takes a stand despite having interests to the contrary. This is why the millionaire that supports higher income tax rates, the poor person that doesn't believe in government assistance for people like himself, the white person speaking out in favor of affirmative action programs for racial minorities, and the person of color who opposes affirmative action programs tend to be seen as either a.) lacking a true appreciation of their own self-interests or b.) acting from a higher and more noble set of values than immediate self-interest but never as c.) deeply corrupted by their own interests.

   There are also individuals who come to make a judgment about a situation as a more or less neutral party with nothing that she personally stands to gain or lose depending on the outcome of the situation. We think of the ideal judge and jury in a court case as having interests of this type. Their very neutrality can bolster their claims about a situation.

   Parents advocating for their "right" to arbitrarily punish their children and control their lives are not taking either type of stand. They are not taking a stand that goes against their self-interests and they are not coming to a decision about their values from a place of neutrality. Guardianship and minority give parents power at the expense of their children. There is therefore nothing especially noble or wise about parents arguing for the maintenance of these institutions in their current form - it is simply one example among many of powerful people attempting to protect their interests at the expense of those they have power over. Saying "As a parent I know what is best for my child" is no more noble than saying "As a slave owner I know that emancipation doesn't suit the Negro" or "As a logging executive I know that we don't need environmental regulation." Even if the statements were valid, we would be right to be highly suspect about the motives of the person making the claim.

   When we hear someone speaking of his or her role as a parent as a justification for beliefs about youth that many youth themselves would likely find oppressive or even abusive we should never accept that as good enough and we should never defer to their judgment on those grounds alone. If anything, that person's status as a parent should make us more suspect about his or her motives for supporting youth oppression. When discussing youth liberation, parenting is not a qualification. It is a conflict of interest. It is important that no one ever trick us into thinking of the position of a parent as necessarily pro-youth or even neutral. We cannot be bullied into silence by those whose class position vis a vis youth betrays their true motives for advocating for their continued oppression.

Youth Rights 101: How to Analyze Issues Through a Youth Rights Lens

   Previously I have posted about how youth rights is primarily a framing device as opposed to a set of hard and fast positions (i.e. youth rights supporters believe in this or youth rights supporters think that is wrong). As a framework for understanding issues related to young people, youth rights may not always give us a lot of easy answers (although sometimes it will) but it will lead us to ask certain types of questions that help us to understand an issue more clearly that we otherwise might have. This blog post isn't going to tell you how to come to the "youth rights position" on a given issue (as if there was only one!) but it will help you to learn to analyze everything from media representations of youth to legal issues involving minors to situations you observe in your daily life through a youth rights framework.

   First, ask yourself how young people are being framed in a given context. Are they portrayed as delinquent troublemakers up to no good? As helpless victims in need of adult guidance and supervision? As autonomous human beings with their own beliefs, values, and personality? Do youth speak for themselves or are others (parents, teachers, experts, etc.) primarily speaking for them? Are we being led to give the things young people say about themselves credence or are we being led to disregard their perspectives in favor of what someone older has to say ostensibly on their behalf? Documentaries in which adults speak about children without allowing children to speak for themselves in a way the viewer is led to believe are just as credible as adult viewpoints are an example of a problematic framing of youth in the media.

   Ask yourself if the solutions being proposed to deal with problems affecting youth deal with the systemic forces that endanger youth by depriving them of autonomy or if they simply reinscribe the adult supremacist logic which creates many of these problems in the first place. The vast majority of books, movies, television news reports, legislation, etc. that aim to tackle the problem of youth on youth violence and harassment (euphemistically termed "bullying") do little to solve the problem and sometimes even do a fair amount to make it worse. This is primarily because these "solutions" fail to take into account the structural forces which conspire to put youth into oppressive situations which they cannot choose to walk away from. Almost all adults have found themselves in a situation where they experienced alienation and unhappiness with the people around them whether it be at a university, a job, a place of worship, a community organization, or even an entire town. The reason that this sort of thing rarely drives adults to take their own lives or to resort to violence against others is not primarily because adults are more mature than youth are - it is that adults are more or less free to leave these situations and move on to one they are happier about. So "anti-bullying" programs which do not seek to ameliorate the lot of students by giving them greater control over their educational environment do little to actually address the problem.

   Another prime example of this phenomenon is how the issue of LGBT youth homelessness is framed, particularly within the context of the LGBT community. When LGBT people and their supporters speak about the tragedy of youth who are homeless due to rejection by their families on the basis of their sexuality and/or gender identity, the villain is always spoken of the in the vaguest possible terms. It's "homophobia" or "religious fundamentalism" or simply the fact that the young person's parents are bad. All of this is true, but it does little to address the problem of LGBT youth homelessness itself. There will unfortunately always be homophobes and religious fanatics among us. Hopefully there will be fewer of them in the future, but they are unlikely to become extinct any time soon. The reason that LGBT youth are in such a vulnerable position is not simply that many of them have parents who are bigots and fools. That is also true of plenty of LGBT adults who seem to do just fine for themselves. It is because of the legal, political, social, cultural, and economic forces which conspire to make young people without an adult patron essentially helpless in our society. There are almost no jobs where a young person without a diploma can earn a decent living. There are few social services that she is able to access on her own. Due to her age, she may not be legally allowed to sign the paperwork necessary to rent an apartment even in the very unlikely event that she comes into enough money to afford one. It is the evil of ageism even more than the evil of homophobia which works to incapacitate homeless LGBT youth and keep them in a dire situation. And what is worse, focusing solely on homophobia while ignoring institutionalized ageism virtually assures that the problem will never go away.

   Ask yourself if the discourse in play revolves around essentialist notions about young people.   Statements about the supposedly immutable, universal, and and essentialist characteristics that youth of a certain age possess are nearly everywhere in our society. They are so taken for granted in our culture that most people rarely if ever question them and will go so far as to label any deviation from these stereotypes as pathological - a child is "socially stunted" or "extremely gifted" for example. On the other hand, we take for granted that there is a great deal of variation when it comes to say, twenty-five-year-olds. Some are ready to have children of their own; some are not. Some are seasoned professionals in their chosen field; some are not. We don't pathologize these differences - we recognize them as a part of human diversity. We should apply this same attitude to youth and we should be highly skeptical in those instances where we see that it is not being applied. (For a great analysis of this phenomenon by a radical young person, check out this blog post.)

   Asking yourself these three questions is by no means all that it takes to analyze a discourse through a youth rights lens. For most of us interested in these issues - those of us who have read, researched, talked, and thought a lot about them - asking ourselves these questions is not something that we do intentionally when we hear someone make a comment about their children or watch a sitcom where youth are featured. It is rather akin to an automatic reflex. When you begin thinking about youth rights issues and using youth rights as a lens through which to analyze issues affecting young people, you will find that the opportunities to do so are endless. You will also find that most discourses centering on youth would make a lot more sense and do a lot more good if youth rights was a part of the average person's frame of reference.

Youth Rights 101: Why I Focus on Youth (Hint: They're Our Society's Most Oppressed Subject Class)

   Some people may wonder why I focus so disproportionately on youth issues. After all, young people are not the only people oppressed, either collectively or individually, in our society. Structural forces and individual prejudices often conspire to keep women and people of color from being as successful as many white males. Heterosexism is still inscribed into our nation's law codes and animates the belief systems of many people. The situation of disabled and elderly Americans bears many similarities to that of youth (albeit with some key differences). People of size are increasingly scapegoated under the guise of a "war on obesity" that conveniently doubles as a war on them. Rural people are oppressed both by the condescending attitudes of non-rural people and the very geographic realities of rurality. The poor economy is an increasingly oppressive force in the lives of more and more Americans, including those who would have once been known as middle class or even wealthy. And individuals of all demographic groups are oppressed by the military, medical, and prison industrial complexes as well as social mores which prize conformity over critical thinking and individuality. So why focus on youth?

   I focus on youth because minors are the only group of individuals in our society that almost everyone - left or right, religious or secular, educated or ignorant, authoritarian or libertarian - is openly comfortable treating as a subject class. Youth are the only group of people in the United States for whom there is widespread consensus that segregating them from the rest of society, denying them legal rights, keeping them economically dependent, and turning arbitrary authority for them over to other people is not a necessary evil but the best possible way we individually and collectively can hope to relate to them. I focus on youth because the ills of sexism, racism, heterosexism, ableism, classism, sizeism, rural oppression, poverty, and the military, medical, and prison industrial complexes are complicated and exacerbated by the status of minority. I focus on youth oppression because it is taken for granted and therefore invisible despite its ubiquity.

   I focus on youth because the critical theoretical eye that has problematized the idea of biologically essentialist gender roles and racial identities has not problematized much of the ageist pseudoscience surrounding discourses about child development. I focus on youth because those who decry the warehousing of our elders and people with disabilities in nursing homes and assisted living facilities do not draw parallels with the warehousing of our youth in schools and other institutions. I focus on youth because most libertarians see no contradiction in talking about arbitrary and oppressive state power on the one hand and using the phrase "parents' rights" on the other. I talk about youth because a commitment to human liberty and social justice demands youth liberation and those who claim to support human liberty and social justice rarely acknowledge this. I focus on youth because there is a more organized effort in our society to extend liberty and dignity to animals than to human children. I focus on youth because ageism is one of the greatest unexamined black marks on American society in the early twenty-first century. I focus on youth because if I don't few people will. And as long as all of these things are true I am a radical youth liberation supporter first, last, and always.