[Oleg Volk]

Wasn't Napoleon an artillery Lt. at 18? And how old was Alexander when he started conquering? I know life expectancy was a lot lower then, and people grew up fast, but the longer you treat young people like children, the longer it takes them to grow up

Modern teenagers mature physically much sooner than people did even a hundred eyars ago, much less earlier in history. Better nutrition, far better access to information (ingeneral, willful ignorance excluded) mean that a modern 15yo should be better able to function in the complex world than a person of the same age could in the past. Moreover, failure to function efficiently wouldn't mean likely death of starvation or exposure.

So why is it that the law doesn't consider 18-20yo people mentally competent to make their own decisions in a variety of matters, and pretty much treats younger teenagers as children? When did this cultural shift begin?

[PATH]

I believe it started with child labor laws. Children were at one time looked upon as miniature adults. Terrible working conditions in mines and factories led to child labor laws being established in this country as well as Europe.

With children no longer working at younger ages they were pushed into a state call "teenager". Educational requiremnets filled the void to keep youngsters busy. In many third world countries yo ucan still see children treated as they were here around the 19th and early 20th centuries

[R.H. Lee]

Rambling thoughts.......

I would submit that a major change came about after WWII. When the troops (my Dad included) came back, built houses and raised families.
The 50's were the beginning of an economic boom and great prosperity in this country that lasts to today.

The WWII generation went through the Great Depression, and did not have the luxury of coddling (is that the right word?). The generation before them was one of immigrants whose values were more of the 'old country'

[Preacherman]

In many ways, I think that the "kinder, gentler world" of today has made our teenagers less capable of responsible thought and conduct than they were in earlier generations. Just look at the pablum they're spoon-fed in school! When I was at school, even as late as the '60's and '70's, there was no such thing as "social promotion" - you passed, or you failed and repeated a year. There were no "touchy-feely" subjects on the curriculum that you could pass without effort (or even without thought) - you had to study and apply yourself, and if you didn't, you failed. There was compulsory physical education - if you wanted to be a slob and avoid exercise, you were dragged out and publicly shamed in front of your classmates (after which experience offenders seldom repeated! :D ). Parents expected you to do your share of chores around the home: I can remember my folks telling me, at an early age, that my weekly pocket-money was linked to how well I did my chores. If I left them undone, the pocket-money was reduced. If I did this too often, there was no pocket-money that week. It didn't take me long to realize that if I wanted some money in my pocket, I had to earn it! How many kids today have to do anything to earn (or deserve) their pocket-money?

I don't want to sound too grumpy: I think that many modern kids are really great people, and I enjoy associating with many of them. However, these kids are not typical of their generation, and reflect really good parenting rather than really good schooling, socializing, etc.

[RED-DOG 40]

Very well put Preacherman! You nailed that one...;)

[PAOLO721]

...............I'd like to add that my own observation is that there seems to be a general loss within the young folks of today (most, but not all) of the concept of personal responsibility.

Also, it's by no means confined to young people. Remember when Janet (boxers or briefs?) Reno stood before the American people as Attorney General of the United States, while the aftermath of Waco was still smoldering and declared, "I take full responsibility for what happened here."

Of course it meant nothing, because she too like so many others of the liberal persuasion do not truly believe in personal responsibility.

Witness also the current farce of the left grilling Condi Rice re: Who is responsible for 9/11? If you believe in the concept of personal responsibility that's an easy one. It's the terrorists who carried out the attack.

[pax]

Well, it is easy to speculate about "kids these days" and how irresponsible, foolish, lazy, and unmotivated they all are -- but such complaints have been common throughout history.

The specific question is an interesting one, though. There is not really any doubt that our culture keeps young people out from the burdens of adult responsibility a lot longer than in the past.

The child-labor laws are part of it, I have no doubt -- but were they a result or a cause?

Obviously the boom of the 50's produced a longer childhood than was the norm just a generation before that. I think a case could be made that that extension of childhood led straight into the societal rearrangement of values that was the 60's. (In other words, folks, if you hated the cultural crisis of the 60's and don't want to see a repeat of those years, don't fight to reinstitute the values of the 50's...)

I sure hope others on here are more informed about this than I am, and can post some good discussion as well as some good sources for study. It's an intriguing question.

pax

Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers. -- Socrates

[Highland Ranger]

I don't accept the premise that today's kids are any less than we were and these statements are the same as those made by generations before (equally untrue when they said it about us)

I think with respect to age, it is strictly related to wealth (physiological changes in species happen over thousands of years not in a generation)

More money = everyone goes to college.

Everyone goes to college, kids start their lives later (at 22) as opposed to getting married at 15 like they did in the old country.

So they are essentially considered children till they graduate and pay their own way, start their own families.

Makes sense to me.

[corncob]

In 1999, at 19, my beautiful wife and I were married. We are still married and have no children. During our (brief) engagement people used to ask if we really thought we were "ready" to get married. I thought this was a strange question--of course we weren't. How can you be truly prepared for something you have never experienced before? If I were 19 in 1969 and landing in Vietnam, would I have really thought I was "ready" for combat?

Bottom line: Young humans exhibit a remarkable tendency to rise to the occasion. We tend to languish in college, but set some responsibilities on our shoulders and we often do better than you might expect.

[pax]

We tend to languish in college, but set some responsibilities on our shoulders and we often do better than you might expect.
Corncob,

That's a good point.

Heh, but I'm biased a little. I was 19 when we got married, 16 years ago now. We've been very happy so far, and I think we'll be married forever. :)

pax

Of course my wife suits me. I raised her! -- my dad, who was 24 when he married my mom who had just barely turned 17 (and they've been married 43 years)

[sm]

Interesting topic, I have been discussing this with THR members, and personal friends. Oh do recall that little discussion in Sociology a few yrs ago...after apresentation I gave...

Like many I can relate to what Preacher posted.

I feel society changed the roles, includes teenagers. For example before Industralzation hit, most folks raised kids to help run the ranch, farm, dairy...etc.,to perpetuate the running of such and provide for the children and aging parents. Self suffiecent.

Communication comes into play as well. A Rancher may not know "how" life was for a farmer or dairyman. Nothing to compare to , be jealous of.

Industriaization comes about , improved communications and tranportation. Folks move to the cities. Bigger families are now not the norm in the city as in the rural areas.

Folks want their kids " to have it better than we did". So perhaps the teaching and responsiblity lessons were relaxed...I mean now the teenager does not have to feed the livestock, or milk the cows, before school...education is now more important to obtain the jobs in the cities.

Folks become less "self suffiecient" kids learn from parents and observation. Folks now also see material things has a symbol of wealth and happiness.

Then the Gummit makes promises, " gonna take care of" starts feeding ideas and promises. Folks become lax and spoiled...teenagers learn this again from parents.

Once in a while a crisis gets one back to basics and root values.

Progress , Sins of the Society, Sins of the Gov't...

I also attribute some to the breakdown of the family unit. No matter what gender a teenage is, input from both parents teach. Then again if the parents are to busy rushing nowhere...keeping up with the Jones'...Toss the teenager a twenty " go entertain yourself at the mall" parent (s) have to play Bridge, a function...or overtime to "one up " the Jones'.

Or perhaps buy the teenagers devotion...

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I believe that the role of the child has changed. In a rural economy and emerging industrial society where children labored, it was expected the the children would help pull the wagon. I grew up on a verymanual farm and I can attest that there were no shortage of things to be done. Long days tends to keep one out of trouble, usually :uhoh: .

All of that changed after WWII with prosperity, the electronic age, and the suburbs. What was the role of the child when there were applicances to do what little was required in a subsurban household? Why, put them in school (compulsory) for longer periods and fore more years. As stated above, "children" are not expected to become adults until after college :scrutiny: I graduated college at 30 :eek:

But the question is: was it inevitable? We do not do that much with our hands anymore. We solve problems and use technology to our advantage. Could it be argued that the level of "education" required these days is much greater? To include college?

Ars public schools day care centers? It seems that the amount to be learned in school has decreased and the time in schoold has increased. Many causes and no thredjack intended.

We will be homeschooling the boy starting next year because he does well in school but is bored. I believe that we could do as well as the PS with 3 hours a day. But I also intend to take time to teach him to be an adult. And, of course, we will have marksmanship class too :D

[R.H. Lee]

Obviously the boom of the 50's produced a longer childhood than was the norm just a generation before that. I think a case could be made that that extension of childhood led straight into the societal rearrangement of values that was the 60's. (In other words, folks, if you hated the cultural crisis of the 60's and don't want to see a repeat of those years, don't fight to reinstitute the values of the 50's...)

I wonder-hypothetically-how much of the cultural crisis of the 60's was driven by the anti-war movement. If there had been no Vietnam War, would we have the same cultural schism we are experiencing today?

[Anna G.]

Better nutrition, far better access to information (ingeneral, willful ignorance excluded) mean that a modern 15yo should be better able to function in the complex world than a person of the same age could in the past.

I think that the good nutrition works and physically the children are mature at younger age. That explains the early start of the sexual life.

Its true that there is a better access to information. However I dont think we can exclude the ones who dont use it. In my experience they are a majority. Also with the useful information which they dont use come all the other nonsense on TV and internet, which of course they absorb like sponges. :fire: Also it is true that the expectations now arent the same as before, the only thing the teens know from TV and other sources, and which is their main purpose, is to be "cool". Not like before to grow up, learn, and have a family. This is the only explanation I can see for the young people being so inmature these days. I am too young yet myself so I cant make comparision with previous generations, but I just dont like what I see now.

[spartacus2002]

Many things in our popular culture promote a lifestyle of an emotional, live-for-the-moment, nonrational extended childhood. Any of us responsible folks with a job and a family would barf if we were made to watch 30 minutes of music videos on MTV/BET because so much of it is antithetical to "traditional values" of hard work, self-sufficiency, and personal responsibility.

I refuse to watch TV programming, and about once a month I turn it on just to harden my resolve to reject it. I don't let my son watch TV either (just Godzilla movies now and then).

The amount of responsibility placed on a child varies throughout history, based on the need of the child to shoulder it for his or his family's survival. Where in today's world is there that need? There is no need. We all have everything we need.

But, TV and popular culture create a desire to purchase tangible items that kids identify with popular culture, and that creates dissatisfaction with what they have (school teaches you to obey, TV teaches you to spend). Combine that with no training in responsibility, and you have a witches' brew that can create sullen, irresponsible kids.

[El Tejon]

Mr. Wolf, you are relating this to guns? If so, I can answer. Your answer is that it began with the SSA of '68.

It started in the '50s with Hollywood-driven concerns over "juvenile delinquents". It started with the switchblade laws. Punk kids with switchblades. We'll fix 'em, we'll pass a law.

The SSA of '68 was originally introduced in the early '60s. Remember a part of the SSA was to set the age for pistol and handgun ammo at 21. If you look back at the Congressional Record you will find many references to "crime caused by juvenile delinquents" as a rationale for supporting the bill. Later Senators like Teddy and Dodd started using race as a way to get support for the bill.

Before this date it was up to the states. Many had no age limits whatsoever. Indiana had an age requirement of 16 for pistols. It was ignored. According to my grandfather who owned a hardware store, if he knew the boy's family or the boy came in with his father or even a note (no really, stop laughing, this is how my father bought his first pistol), he would sell to them without regard to age. Of course, before '68 guns could be purchased through the mail as well.

[Edited for bad manners] Anna G., welcome to THR!

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Where are our manners?

Welcome to The High Road Anna G. :)

[telewinz]

teenagers less capable of responsible thought and conduct than they were in earlier generations. Bingo! Most radicals are young, when is the last time you heard of a 50 year old suicide bomber? There is a safety net for mistakes now but 100 or 500 years ago foolish thoughts or acts often cost a person their life. The risks were much greater in the past...and so was the resulting harm. I wonder how many teenagers felt "they knew it all" 300 years ago?:uhoh: