Will the real oppressed group please stand up?

Evidence for oppression

Shoving food

I found this extremely interesting study (local) in which 407 psychology students were asked whether they were ever made to eat food when they didn't want to. The results were astonishing: 282 replied affirmatively; 140 of those later completed a more detailed survey. In 107 (69%) of those cases, the culprit was an authority figure, of which over 3/4 consisted of parents or step-parents. Wow! Seems there's quite the epidemic of shoving food into your own kids (84% of the victims were 10 years old or under when the abuse happened).

Now imagine if this was literally any other group that's commonly portrayed as discriminated against. "69% of transgenders made to eat food against their will!". Bombs would start flying if that headline ever appeared. Yet with kids, it's spoken about as if it was nothing. Do you now see who is the actually oppressed group? BTW, here's how the shovers justified themselves:

The three most common justifications were healthy food (29.9%; ``it's good for you''), variety in diet (24.3%; ``try something new''), and avoid wastefulness (24.3%). [...] Some respondents (9.3%) identified ``child was too skinny'' as a justification

Of course, those "justifications" don't actually do anything to justify the abuse. They are never used to shove food into any other group, so why should they suddenly become valid in regards to kids? The only way they could fly is if you assumed that the abuser is free to decide the values his kids "need" to follow, and their own wants or aversions don't matter. Or in other words, if you consider the kid as a lower life form, lower than even a pet. As I've never seen food being shoved into one; at most the owner puts it in front of the pet's face, then when it rejects, he goes away. On the other hand, in this study:

A majority of the respondents (57%) reported that there was a ``standoff'' with the forcer, and the average time of this standoff was 50 min

Twenty-eight respondents (26.2%) reported that they were punished because they did not consume the target food: 20 experienced negative punishment (staying at the table, going to bed without any dinner), and 8 suffered positive punishment (e.g. spankings).

I have never seen a "standoff" with a pet (at least one that lasted longer than a minute), much less them being punished for not eating. Imagine: the average dog or rat in a cage has it better than most kids. Yet absolutely no one talks about it. How insane is this? And we haven't even covered all the issues, just the food!

In comparison, I tried to search for "force feeding wife", and only found some feeder fetish thing that's based on mutual consent, so not really oppression.

But why is shoving food dangerous? It creates eating disorders:

Also, the forced consumption respondents reported avoiding significantly more foods as an adult (12.3 foods) than respondents without a forced consumption episode (8.1 foods).

In particular, the trauma associated with the specific food that was shoved remains in adulthood (in most of the victims):

The respondents' response to the target substance was assessed in a number of different questions. First, when asked if they would willingly consume the target food today, 77 (72%) of 107 respondents said ``no.''

The entire way we treat the feeding of our children is absolutely insane. We imagine that there's some "optimal" way of eating, and then try to push and pull levers so that our child ends up eating in this way. Which, of course, doesn't and can't work because a child is not a programmable device without its own unpredictable (but most often psychologically harmful) responses. Worse than that, we don't actually have access to some "dietary prescription" that can be shown to be optimal, and we're almost certainly not going to ever have it - because it depends on so many factors. People are different for one - some tolerate certain foods better than others. The Inuit might have endured an all-meat diet, but an European probably won't be able to. There are allergies that make eating even "nutritious" foods a death sentence for some. There are differences in the bacterial profiles of people which make them digest certain foods better or worse. There are diseases like diabetes which discourage certain foods. You can't even form a perfect diet for a specific person because the requirements vary by time and other factors. If you have an infection, or are pregnant, you need more of certain nutrients. Energy needs depend on activity levels and a host of other factors. And I could go on. So how have we even survived up until this point, if eating is such a rocket science?

Because we have instincts that tell us what to eat and when. The instincts that have constant access to the entire state of the body, that science will never. The instincts that communicate by feelings of craving, disgust, effects after eating, etc. The instincts that parents are trying their best to destroy by severing the association between them, and the child's taken actions. When a child rejects a food, it's not being neophobic or picky (both idiotic and very harmful words that significantly contribute to the currently prevailing attitude), but simply following its own instincts, its body's requirements. And when it's shoved, the child is taught that it's supposed to eat according to instructions (full plate, must have breakfast, whatever) instead. After years of that, the instincts diminish or even almost fully disappear. And then, the child begins eating whatever just to fill itself up, regardless of the actual needs of the body, and the result is chronic disease. Shoving is not the only way to accomplish the destruction of instincts, of course; there are ads which associate certain foods with fun or heroism; supernormal stimuli by unnatural combinations of starch, salt and fat in the potato chips; peer pressure at parties; and probably others. Good parenting would consist of protecting the child from these factors as much as possible, and reminding it that the instinct is primary. If you doubt this, consider that animals other than humans have survived for so long without science, logic, reasoning, technology, nothing but pure instinct! Even "primitive" roaches!

Of course, I'm not saying that science or reasoning is useless, but without the instincts it's very much inadequate. You can have the best theoretical diet, like the Hunza diet which results in 120+ aged people, but if you get an anaphylaptic shock from one of their foods, it won't help you at all. So in the end you'll need to trust your body's signals. Neither am I saying that the instincts are perfect. After all, we spent the vast majority of our time on this rock in the jungle or savannah, and that is what we are adapted to. Certain things might have simply been so common and expected in the wild, that the body assumes they'll come at some point and doesn't give an immediate negative reaction to their absence (sun exposure, exercise?). And of course, we already know the instincts can get overwhelmed by all kinds of civilizationary stimuli. This, by the way, is also proven by direct scientific tests. Look (local):

Our findings reveal that by the end of the preschool period, the amount of food offered influences children's food intake: 5 year old children ate greater amounts when presented with larger portions. In contrast, food intakes of 3.5 year olds were not affected by portion size; their intake varied little by portion size manipulation. This pattern of results is consistent with other findings indicating that as children develop, their food intake is increasingly affected by a variety of social, cultural, and environmental factors.

What this means is that the 3.5 year old hasn't had his instinct ruined yet, so he eats the same amount always (the one that the hunger tells him). On the other hand, the five year old already has started to lose his instincts, so he eats more when more is offered. Now, this doesn't strictly prove that it is because of shoving, though that interpretation makes sense to me. The parents keep telling their kid to eat the whole plate, and eventually, the kid loses the connection between hunger and how much he is supposed to eat. But, an interpretation where the parents were actually restricting the foods, so that he feels compelled to eat more when more is around, is also viable. Either way, this clearly isn't natural for the human body. In the wild, having dysregulated hunger signals would be very dangerous. You can't be too full with predators around, nor obviously eat too little because you'll just starve then. The effect in this study was small, but imagine if they tested 8 year olds, or even older children too in comparison.

All I really want to say is there's a reason the body sends signals; ignore them at your own peril. And yet everyone does that today, prefering "official advice" that constantly changes (sometimes by 180 degrees), or just the widely available and popular foods and behaviors. Even while chronic disease rates are at an all time high and constantly rising. And the biggest factor contributing to the destruction of instincts - food shoving - is experienced pretty much exclusively by kids. It might actually be the most cruel thing that is done to them, even worse than school (which itself ruins the instincts by eg. making them hold poop or destroy the sleep schedule). Imagine eating stuff but not being able to detect what it's doing to you, because you've been brainwashed into ignoring your feelings for so long, they're just not there anymore. And so your body degrades and degrades but you keep following the same habits because there is nothing to resist them. At that point the only thing that could save you is luck, that the foods commonly available to you just happen to not be that harmful for your constitution. Or recovering the instincts, assuming that's even possible.

I know that some of the more "reason and science" inclined people reading this might dismiss the role of instincts at all. Fortunately I've collected some references (archive) (MozArchive) just for this occassion:

Records from one community covering 2 years show that bonobos consumed aquatic herbs once every 2 weeks on average (36 times in 517 observation days, spread over 13 months). Foraging visits to the swamps lasted in total 96 h, which is 1.5% of total observation time and 3% of the total feeding time. During swamp visits, all adult individuals and many older infants and juveniles ingested aquatic herbs. Among all of the aquatic herbs available in the swamps, bonobos focus on the two species analyzed in this study. One of them, the white water lily (Nymphaea lotus), is harvested in large quantities, and bonobos mainly ingest those parts of the plant that grow under water, while discarding flowers and leaves (Fig. 1). When feeding on the second species Juncus spp, bonobos ingest relatively small quantities, selecting the soft pith of the leaf base.

Even though the availability of aquatic herbs is very scarce in their environment, bonobos put great effort to regularly visit the few places that contain them. They know how often they need to eat them, which kinds, and even which parts. They have no technology that allows them to figure out these contain iodine (and maybe other things we can't even detect yet) while land-growing stuff doesn't - it's their bodies' signals that are telling them that. The "civilized" human has long lost that ability, and is forced to rely on food lists or whatever, to construct his diet. If the list is defective, though (and it just so happens that official iodine requirements are severely understated), disease will be sure to result with the human being none the wiser.

If you think about it, animals (even domesticated ones) are in an a lot better position than us. Ads don't affect them, neither does "peer pressure" (no cousin doggie mocking you for refusing to drink beer). There are no "officially accepted rules"; nothing making you eat 3 square meals per day, this and that amount of fruit and vegetables, no "you need meat to be strong" etc. Usually no "parent" locking you into your cage until you clean your plate. Oh, and if you're a mammal, you will of course be breastfed (and not fed a toxic "scientific" formula!) - because that's what they do, by instinct! And yet, we gave all that up, because the health, dignity, or agency of our kids don't matter to us; they just exist to be "normal", obedient, and dominated.

Restricting Internet access

I typed restricting internet usage of kids into DDG. Some results:

How to Kick Your Kids Off the Wi-Fi and Take Control of Your Internet (archive) (MozArchive) - wow! Kick [...] Off! Really?
How To Block Internet Access on Your Child’s Phone (archive) (MozArchive) - even better. Apparently taking their phones and changing how they work is now noble.
Use Parental Control Router to Limit Kid's Internet Usage (archive) (MozArchive) - Taking away their devices altogether can lead to tears and tantrums, which, although necessary, can cause a huge amount of stress for you. Ha! Three in one. The child treated as only an annoying creature that throws tantrums (why even have kids then?). Their tears don't matter except as a stress inducer for the abuser (parent). And, stealing their devices is considered necessary. The site also shills some app that - among others - allows to Check kid's browser history to understand better what kids are up to and View the real-time GPS location of the kid's mobile device to make sure they stay in safe places.
How to Set Up Internet Parental Controls (archive) - Let them know that while you trust them, you will still verify that they are following the rules and that their online use can and will be monitored. Explain that internet access is a privilege that shouldn't be abused and that it can and will be taken away if they don't meet your expectations. The kid as a tool for "meeting expectations". Submit or I'll take everything you care about! You can just sense the orgasm this psycho gets from dominating his innocent kid(s) that cannot resist. These are the exact types of "parents" that get estranged at the first possible opportunity, and then cry "how could this be?! I was so good to my precious kids!"

For comparison, I've also searched for restricting internet usage of wife, and none of the links mention the wife specifically (in fact, if you enter any of them, they keep talking about the kids). Seems no one is trying to do that. Clearly, the wife is considered deserving of free internet access, but the kids somehow aren't. Therefore, oppression.

But why is it harmful? For the same reasons that governments censoring the Internet is harmful for you. In the modern age, the Internet is a staple for socialization; education; entertainment - and is the only escape from a brutal "real" life for many (especially the kids / teens who are not let to do much outside by parents, or ones with serious disabilities, etc). If you are worried about your kid visiting "bad websites", then well - teach it there are dragons there, and not just flowers. Then let it roam. Micromanaging everything isn't going to result in anything positive, but might bring learned helplessness long term. It seems like blanket Internet bans are just used as a crutch by bad parents who can't be bothered to sit down and teach their kids to navigate the world.

Of course, today, it is not only parents doing this but governments too. Australia will ban children under 16 from using social media, after its parliament approved the world's strictest laws (archive) (MozArchive):

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says the legislation is needed to protect young people from the "harms" of social media, something many parent groups have echoed.

If there is harm, then legislate that away, and not social media in general (autoscroll could be disabled specifially, if that is a problem, for example). Otherwise, as I said, you deny the kids access to modern entertainment, socialization, and education. And is there proof that this harm somehow affects "minors" more than "adults"? Even if it was so, the positives clearly outweigh the negatives; without social media, how would a teen find events he might want to go to, or easily check up on all his friends, or find fringe hobby groups or mental disease support groups, or even read information contrary to the "official"? Of course, I realize all of this is possible in other ways, but why make it harder? Maybe old people simply like torturing kids.

“We want our kids to have a childhood and parents to know we have their backs," Albanese told reporters afterwards.

They already don't have a childhood because they spend it in the torture chamber known as school. And now, you're trying to remove one of the few ways of coping with that. One of the few fun and empowering things in their lives, because you think you have figured out how best to raise the child-pet, and no negative effect will stop you.

"We don't argue that its implementation will be perfect, just like the alcohol ban for [children] under 18 doesn’t mean that someone under 18 never has access – but we know that it’s the right thing to do," he said on Friday.

Heh. Exactly as I thought. They already know that it’s the right thing to do, so don't bother them with any inconvenient flaws of their schemes. Hell, they have even added freaking REDDIT (archive) (MozArchive) to the list of bans! That's barely even social media; it's a forum! Anyway, let's check out their recent justifications:

From 10 December, tech companies can be fined up to A$50m ($32.5m; £25.7m) if they do not take "reasonable steps" to deactivate existing accounts for under-16s and prohibit new ones.

Imagine all the teens losing their contacts, post histories, maybe ways of making money for some, etc...

Each banned platform was chosen as their "sole or a significant purpose is to enable online social interaction," the government said, and more sites may be added given the "fast-changing" nature of technology.

EXPOSED! EXPOSED! EXPOSED! The government wants teens to not have social interaction! They admitted it, clear as the sun!

"Delaying children's access to social media accounts gives them valuable time to learn and grow, free of the powerful, unseen forces of harmful and deceptive design features such as opaque algorithms and endless scroll," said Australia's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant.

Learn and grow in what way? As a perfectly obedient, dehumanized chihuahua raised by school? And again, if the algorithms and scroll bother you so much, then ban that! Reddit doesn't even have the latter, while the former (if it even exists there) can be mitigated by only going to the subreddits you want to.

Most Australian adults support the ban, according to polls, but some mental health advocates say it may cut kids off from connection, and others say it could push youngsters to even-less-regulated corners of the internet.

Of course most "adults" support the ban, because they love pulling the leashes of children. The mental health advocates are completely right.

Recently, Denmark (archive) (MozArchive) became another government that jumped onto the child slavery train:

The Danish prime minister says the country will ban social media for under-15s, as she accused mobile phones and social networks of “stealing our children’s childhood”.

Heh. Same shitty excuse. What would their childhood be without social media, but everything else remaining the same?

Støre said last year that it would be “an uphill battle” but that politicians must intervene to protect children from the “power of the algorithms”.

And...what's the issue with banning or modifying the algorithms, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Denmark’s minister of digitalisation, Caroline Stage, said her government’s announcement was a “breakthrough”. She said: “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: we’ve been too naive. We’ve left children’s digital lives to platforms that never had their wellbeing in mind. We must move from digital captivity to community.”

You threw the kids into nondigital captivity known as school. Stop mocking me.

In her speech, the prime minister cited figures showing that 60% of 11- to 19-year-old boys did not see a single friend in their free time, while 94% of Danish children in seventh grade had a profile on social media before they were 13.

And? How would kicking them off social media fix it? As I said, many teens simply have no offline friends due to not fitting in. Internet will help them expand their reach that obviously can only be tiny IRL. You will not turn a natural introvert into a social butterfly just because you kicked him out of social media; in fact the effect can only be the opposite due to such people often not having anything in common with anyone they know IRL. But hey, the (Australian) government has already slipped and admitted that they simply don't want teens to have social interaction at all, so maybe I should just accept that instead of trying to refute other possible justifications.

In the end - since I've been in contact with several "minors" through my site / chatroom - I know social media is absolutely essential for many of them. Governments will be killing teens by banning it, without exaggeration. Not everyone fits the idealized version of a child; some might not have offline friends at all but will easily find them online due to there being a bigger pool of candidates. Some might have disabilities preventing the spoiled life that governments imagine everyone must follow. Some might need information or support that simply isn't available anywhere else (again, groups for specific mental diseases or fetishes for example). I knew those people, so I won't be gaslit into believing government's bullshit, regardless of whether it's based on good intentions (ha, sure) or just their dream of domination.

Medical treatment

Welcome to the world, my lovely little boy. Hope you had fun for your first few days - now enjoy this knife!

Obviously, kids are the only group on which it is allowed to perform all kinds of medical procedures without their agreement - no matter how unwanted, extreme or life destroying. One of my favorite examples is circumcision, AKA cutting of (a part of) their penises, which performs (among others) these functions (local):

Protects the infant from contaminants, infection, and meatal stenosis; [...] Meatal stenosis (narrowing or closing of the urethral hole) occurs in approximately 10% of circumcised boys and sometimes requires painful corrective surgery.
Protects the adult glans from chafing and loss of feeling. When the mucosa of the glans are exposed to chafing, the glans protects itself by keratinizing (similar to a callous). Foreskin keeps the glans internal, as it is supposed to be. The more the glans keratinizes, the less it can feel.
Keeps the head of the penis warm, moist, and comfortable. Like the eyeball, inside of the cheek, and vagina, the glans is designed to be a protected internal organ.
The foreskin is densely innervated with multiple types of nerves. These nerves respond to stretch, fine touch detail, temperature, and more. Foreskin feels really good.

Also check out some stats (archive) (MozArchive) on the prevalence of this "procedure". Starting from the epicenter of it, USA:

A representative, nation-wide survey of all states (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004, survey) published in 2007 by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that the overall rate in the USA was 79%

4 out of 5 US infants have had their dick chopped!

A telephone survey in 2001-02 of 10,173 men aged 16-59 found 59% were circumcised. The rate was 69% for those who were born in Australia [Richters et al., 2006]. However, the rate in those aged 16-20 years was only 32%, leading to public health concerns and a call to increase circumcision

Yes, we need to advertise more infant dick cutting because some parents have decided to resign.

Canada:

Approx. 50% overall, but varies by region and age group (see below in section on rate of infant circumcision).

Not lagging far behind the biggest violators.

The most recent national survey, in 2010–2012, found circumcision rates of 13.2% amongst 9,938 British males aged 16–24 years, 19.6% amongst 6,403 British males aged 25-34 years, and 18.5% amongst 3,849 British males aged 35-44 years

So yeah, if you thought it's only the backwards USA / Canada / Australia (or maybe Islamic countries) cutting dicks (and based Europe is immune), this should serve as a nice cold shower to wake you up. Of course, not all the Euro countries do it at such high rates (eg Spain is at 2% and Denmark at 1.6) - but that's still way too much! In a country with tens of millions people, that will be hundreds of thousands mutilated boys! Note: some stats - including other ones in this very article - show slightly different rates. I won't dig deep into that as I don't believe it matters that much; all I wanted to show is that there is a lot of dick cutting being done.

As with the other abuses, I have to bring up the same central point that you're probably already used to. If any other "discriminated" group was subjected to a pointless, invasive, irreversible and potentially deadly (archive) (MozArchive) procedure at similar rates, would it be let slide like circumcision is? This is how we can easily prove that children are the most discriminated group of all, with the second place being a galaxy behind. Because, if even one (adult) transgender or black was taken from his home, thrown into a hospital, and had a bodypart of his cut, that would be front page news and the perpetrator would rot in jail for years. And yet...

In Canada, the average yearly births seem to be about 350 000 (archive) (MozArchive) since the year 2000. Assuming half of that is boys, and half of those will be circumcised (suggested by the stats), there will be almost 90k victims per year - with zero punishment for the perpetrators or care from the media, politicians, etc. Of course, circumcision is not the only way through which the problem of "medicating" kids shows up (there's the horrible antidepressants epidemic, etc...), but it's the most easily understood, and very revealing. If you're still not convinced circumcision is a big problem, read this page (archive) (MozArchive) to learn not only what actually happens during the procedure (very graphic - not for the faint of heart!), but learn the regrets of all the parents who went for it because they blindly followed the "official prescription" for how a kid's beginning is "supposed" to go. Here's an example:

Our perfect and healthy little baby boy was born into this world on April 21st. For some reason, the pediatrician we had chosen wasn't called while I was in labor, so she didn't show up at the hospital until the next day as we were checking out. "What about the circumcision?" my husband asked. "Oh, we'll do it in the office next week," she said, "Call and make an appointment." I said I was worried about the procedure and she blew me off saying it's no big deal - that I shouldn't worry about it. She also said she was "pro-circ and thinks it should be done." We scheduled the appointment for April 30th. Even though I wish so many times that during that week I had changed my mind, put my foot down, and protected his tiny perfect body, I didn't. The decision had already been made.

The instincts told the mother to not cut; she could have just stayed home - but went for it anyway. That's how strong the allure of "officiality" is. And it's also why we can't fix the problem by convincing specific parents; the cruel systems that enable circumcision must be destroyed. It is considered a routine procedure in the USA and probably Australia / Canada too - so even if some parents resist it due to instincts, the others might not have any and won't even get the idea that you can just not go for it. Here's an admission of one such parent:

Thank you for sharing your story! I can relate to some of it. I have three sons as well. I became pregnant with my first in 2002 and I didn't do any research at all into circumcision. I never knew it was even optional. I'm sure I signed a form giving consent, probably with a whole stack of forms but it wasn't an yes or no type of thing -- certainly not an 'opt-in' type of thing. I didn't know that anyone didn't circumcise. I thought that you had to get it cut off. Oh how ignorant and naive I was!!!!

Aside from proving the absolutely extreme discrimination of children, don't such situations also show us that we shouldn't be leaving all the decision making up to the parents? Since it's so easy to convince them to cut bodyparts of their own kids, or they simply don't care what happens and stand by while the officials do what they want? Though it might seem inappropriate to intervene in the parents' decisions, we have to ask ourselves if kids actually matter or not? Are they separate people deserving of respect and a fair chance at life, or only toys to abuse? Remember, it's about losing an important bodypart for the rest of their life! And sometimes even bleeding to death from it!

No political representation

The legal system - of course - doesn't really work (well enough) for providing the decision making capability to even adult plebeians. But at least it's an attempt. At least the officials and general society pretend that plebeians matter; such courtesy isn't given to children at all. Let's check out some justifications for this, since I hope it's at least been covered somewhere. Here is the first link (archive) (there are many others, but this one gives all the arguments, so I'll focus exclusively on it) that came up for the query why can't children vote on DuckDuckGo:

Kids can’t vote because they lack maturity, life experience, critical thinking abilities, and long-term planning skills.

OK, it just so happens that the author has split every one of those claims by section, so let's go through them one by one:

Lack of maturity

My Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines maturity as: the quality of thinking and behaving in a sensible, adult manner. I wouldn't say the vast majority of adults are sensible. As for adult manner, that's just presupposing what you need to prove. "Adults are so great because they adults!" (AKA we win the competition by eliminating all other contenders before it starts). Continuing:

Younger people struggle to acquire wisdom from events that occur in their lives.

O rly? Children / teenagers are unable to learn? Then why do they go to school? To me, "minors" clearly learn better than adults, who are simply stuck in their ways. The only reason it might seem otherwise is because they are massively inhibited by "adults", who throw them into school and make them write down useless stuff - then when they finally get back home, they have to study for tests, and do homework. That has to not only rot your brain, but also steal time needed to "acquire wisdom" from regular life situations.

Their brains tend to be wired for instant gratification more than adults.

Proof? BTW, you "mature adults" are not doing too swell (archive) (MozArchive) here either:

Approximately 30% of EAs (emerging adults, ages 18-29) engaged in monthly HED (heavy episodic drinking)

Another example (MozArchive):

The 2024 WHO report on the prevalence of tobacco use shows that the age group 45–54 had the highest rates across the years 2000–2022, with the most recent rate being 26.4% in 2022 when the next two highest rates were of age groups, 55–64 (24.8%) and 35–44 (24.7%), followed by their adjacent groups, 65–74 (21.1%) and 25–34 (20.4%), and the next two age groups, 75–84 (16.9%) and 15–24 (13.3%), with the age group 85 or older (12.9%) showing the lowest rate.

A quarter of "mature adults" aged 35-64 regularly inhale poisonous substances for "instant gratification". Where is the denial of the gratification that was supposed to represent them and justify their superiority over "minors"? For the final blow into this myth, let's check out adult junk food consumption (archive) (MozArchive):

In total, 92.7% of US children and 86.0% of US adults reported at least some junk food consumption on any given day. Higher percentages of junk food consumption among children compared with adults were observed across all population subgroups.

HAHAHAHA. Three strikes and you're out! If 86% of "mature adults" cannot resist the allure of junk despite the health risks, then clearly "delayed gratification" is a fraud. Therefore it does not provide a justification for giving "adults" the right to vote, and children not. Oh, and if you want to say that kids did worse here, it doesn't really save the adults - 86% of them still fall to instant gratification that was supposed to justify their voting rights. And adults control the kids' diets anyway.

And besides, why should we not want to gratify ourselves? Is life simply about enduring suffering? I obviously don't want to recommend unhealthy habits, but satisfying yourself alone isn't an issue. Maybe this is why only "adults" are allowed to vote, because letting "minors" do so, would be more likely to eradicate cruel policies? Anyway, continuing the main article:

Remember, 16-year-olds are only 3-4 years removed from playing with toys.

What is wrong with playing with toys? Why are "adult" hobbies like parties, drinking, etc. somehow superior? Or maybe we're not supposed to have fun at all? This world ruled by "adults" starts seeming more like hell the deeper into this article we dig.

Yes, there are some very mature teenagers. Some of them work, help out with family finances, and a few even have children of their own.

See how "maturity" is nothing more than allegiance to "official" ways of living? Bringing a kid into this world (and then not knowing what to do with it) is supposedly the peak of maturity...when even a cockroach has no problem doing that.

But the overwhelming majority are just trying to get through high school and successfully transition into early adulthood.

Yeah. Because you - the "mature adults" - shoved them there!

Lack of life experience

Life experience is lacking exactly because all that the kids are allowed to do is to go to school, write useless stuff down, then come back, study for tests, and solve homework. It's evidence for discrimination, not a justification for it!

Even at 16 or 17 years old, the biggest challenge most youth are facing centers around SAT scores and which colleges to consider.

Once again, it's the adults that chose that lifestyle for them.

They have no precept for foreign policy, financial markets, economic stability, or opportunity.

My Oxford English Dictionary defines precept as An authoritative command to do some particular act; an order, mandate. Hahaha! So people are supposed to vote according to an authoritative command. What the fuck is the point of voting at all, then? Just have the authorities decide all the issues and responses. But then, that's just a dictatorship. Maybe that's what the author actually wants?

If they were able to vote, they would be forced to rely on what they learn in high school which is not shown by the data to prepare our students well.

Why do they need to be prepared to vote? It sounds so dystopic; as if there was some specific way you "needed" to vote (but, the author already admitted that's what he thinks). I'm completely fine with the kids and teens voting according to their intuitions, impressions, personal ideas or whatever. Isn't that the point of (representative) democracy in the first place? You vote for what appeals to you. Actually, let's find this out. I typed "what is the point of representative democracy" (shocking, I know) into DuckDuckGo. It's surprisingly hard to find a clear answer; I'm mostly finding links that tell me what representative democracy is. But I found a few, so let's check them out (archive) (MozArchive):

The structure of a representative democracy allows individuals to vote for a specific elected official who can represent their needs within the government. Instead of requiring a vote from everyone, every time an issue arises, the representatives are able to vote on the behalf of their district. This simplifies the process of the democracy while ensuring all parties receive representation.

Hey, look, it says all parties. Not all educated, knowledgeable, experienced, mature, aged parties. Here's an even better explanation (archive) (MozArchive):

Representative democracy allows for the inclusion of diverse perspectives, as elected representatives often come from various backgrounds and regions. This diversity ensures that different viewpoints are considered in the decision-making process, promoting policies that reflect the needs of various segments of society. Through this inclusivity, representative democracy aims to address the interests of different social, economic, and cultural groups, fostering social harmony and creating a sense of unity among citizens. Representation of diverse interests helps ensure that government policies are more equitable and responsive to the needs of all citizens.

So, representative democracy is supposed to represent diverse perspectives and respond to all citizens. Then why are the children and teens completely excluded? And funnily enough, it even says directly that elected representatives are supposed to come from various backgrounds and regions to ensure that different viewpoints are considered in the decision-making process. Meaning it necessitates kids and teens inside the government itself! Otherwise, one significant minority group has zero representation, breaking the entire point of representative democracy. The same article also contains this quote:

While representative democracy operates on majority rule, it also provides mechanisms to protect the rights of minority groups. Many representative democracies have constitutional safeguards and independent judicial systems that ensure the protection of individual and minority rights. By establishing checks and balances, representative democracy prevents the “tyranny of the majority” and promotes policies that respect the rights and freedoms of all citizens. This protection of minority rights contributes to a more inclusive society, as it ensures that vulnerable groups are not marginalized in the decision-making process.

Haha. That sounds noble. Unfortunately, there is a certain vulnerable group that is completely marginalized in the decision-making process. It also lacks pretty much any rights and freedoms. At this point I shouldn't have to tell you what it is.

Okay, I think that's enough links and quotes. Obviously - if the point of a representative democracy is for all citizens to be represented by their officials - then that can't exclude kids and teens. But currently that is exactly what's going on. Not only they can't run for a government position, but even vote for one - and thus get absolute zero representation. Imagine if blacks or women were rejected in this way! To fix this, everyone capable should be able to both vote and run for government. And by capable, I don't mean reaching arbitrary levels of age, maturity, knowledge, life experience or any other self-serving charateristic meant to keep the domination of "adults" going. For voting, all that should be required is for that person to be able to read, and mark a square with a pen (or mouse / keyboard in the modern age). If that's your 3 year old, then congrats, he's all clear! As for getting a government position, you can add writing and speaking to the list of requirements (and just to be clear, again, I don't mean any particular level of skill - which would once again arbitrarily exclude young people - only the ability to perform those actions at all). Hey, don't blame me - I'm just trying to make representative democracy actually work according to its officially stated aims. As an aside, it's kind of funny that for all the talk about inclusion inside the left-wing circles, no one has bothered to include the kids in anything of importance.

If you still insist on requiring "education" or "knowledge" before allowing people to vote, check out (archive) (MozArchive) how politically "learned" the "mature adults" are:

The survey finds more than 70% of Americans fail a basic civic literacy quiz on topics like the three branches of government, the number of Supreme Court justices, and other basic functions of our democracy. Just half were able to correctly name the branch of government where bills become laws. 

Another example is in how almost everyone (all over the world) votes for the one of the two main parties shoved in front of their faces by the mainstream. Even when alternative ones have programs that are a lot better. The argument that "you'll just waste your vote" is a joke, by the way. The truly wasted vote is the one for the main parties with trash programs. Doing that ensures that nothing will ever change for the better. And the fact that most "mature adults" don't realize this surely isn't supportive of their exclusive right to vote over "minors". Voting for a main party means succumbing exactly to the short-term thinking that we were told teens suffer from, but adults magically avoid. As in, "I don't want the slightly worse evil to win now so I will support the slightly lesser evil now", without reference to anything other than the immediate future.

Undeveloped Brain and A Lack of Critical Thinking and Long-Term Planning Skills

The part of the brain that controls rational thought does not fully develop until age 25.

So all under 25s should be banned from voting? Would this also apply to all other "adult rights" like driving, sex, alcohol, etc? Scientific evidence (local) actually makes this idea not only inviable but completely unrealistic - Let’s imagine considering a brain mature when every index of brain structure, function, and connectivity hits an asymptote. When would an average brain reach this threshold of maturity? From what I’ve reviewed above, the answer might lie sometime between ‘‘the 30s’’ and ‘‘never.’’ Our brains never stop changing, so we never truly reach the fabled maturity. Are we now going to ban grandpas from stuff too, because their brain is still developing? Even with the assumptions best fitting the "ban immature people from doing anything" theory, the threshhold would be at at least 30 years of age! The entire society would collapse because no one under 30 could drive, work hard jobs, etc. and either way it doesn't provide a reason to reject kids and teens specifically.

Adults process events in their lives with the rational part of their brains known as the prefrontal cortex.

This allows them to make good decisions using sound judgment and demonstrate an awareness of long-term consequences.

We've gone over this already when we've talked about their love of smoking, drinking, and junk food. It's a joke.

Teens cannot use their prefrontal cortex because it is not developed enough.

So they cannot use it at all? This sounds insane simply on an first impression basis. Has this person ever met a teenager at all? If he did, he'd know they make long term decisions all the time. Why would the prefrontal cortex even be there otherwise, anyway? How "developed" does it need to be to start being "used"? Does any other bodypart work this way? The under-developed heart or digestive system still do things, so why would the brain be different? Of course, the author couldn't be bothered to provide a single reference for this insanity. Yet I've found many (archive) (MozArchive) that disprove it:

Located at the very front of the brain, the prefrontal cortex is responsible for "executive functions." These high-level cognitive skills include planning, organization, emotional regulation, and goal setting. Think of the PFC as the architect of your teen's mental processes, helping them solve problems, resist impulsive decisions, and maintain emotional balance (Hu & Stamoulis, 2024).

During adolescence, the prefrontal cortex undergoes a major transformation. Connections in the brain are strengthened, enhancing abilities like impulse control, cognitive flexibility, and adaptability. These foundational skills are what empower teens to regulate emotions, weigh risks, and make thoughtful, forward-looking decisions (Pöpplau et al., 2023).

So, teens can indeed use it. Supposedly, it's also possible to Support Prefrontal Cortex Growth with Practical Strategies - therefore, maybe the "impulsive teens" just didn't have enough opportunities (because of people like this author who just want to chain them)?

Professionals who work with teens and their parents recommend that parents are always there to offer a “frontal lobe assist”.

Which professionals?

This is when the parent is there to help the teen through normal challenges that the teen is struggling with because they can’t yet “see around the corner” as a result of their current stage in brain development.

This is just self-serving crap to justify domination. There's no evidence it's necessary. If the teen wants help, he will ask for it (if his parents are trustworthy, anyway - which is actually a big problem today). Yet, here are all the things that the author thinks the teens absolutely cannot manage alone:

Establish a morning and evening routine

Why do you need to do the same things every morning and evening? Besides, many teens have routines in the gym, etc. They are quite able to follow them without an "adult" whipping them.

Control the risks associated with peer pressure and impulsive decision making

Maybe the adults should take care of their own impulsive decision making, seeing how they can't resist all kinds of vices.

Establish and pursue a vision for their future

A future like what? A shitty job that's soon going to disappear? Buying a house (impossible for the vast majority), making a kid that will then get shoved into the same official prescription? The current society isn't fit for visions.

Manage their workload, hobbies, leisure activity, and sleep schedule

Heh. They can't even do that regardless, because their entire lives are centered around school torture. It feels like the author is just grabbing whatever smart-sounding slogan comes to his mind, then throws it at us without reference to what's going on in the teens' actual lives.

And let's not pretend adults excel at Critical thinking abilities. Most don't question anything "official" - easily proven with schooling, Covid restrictions, vaccines, the job or legal systems, prevalence and ethics of advertisements, etc. The "minors" are doing a lot better in this regard, at least until the "adults" rip it out of them. Being that dirty conspiracy theorist, I'd actually say that the entire "maturing" process is meant to turn these beautiful, explorative, lively kids into frozen zombies repeating a few conventions. The adult is the degraded form of the child, not an improved or realized one.

And what about their supposed Long-term planning skills? Did you know that 50% of all pregnancies are accidental (archive) (MozArchive)? So much for planning. And - if you look at how the parents actually end up raising their kids after - it's clear that there's no foresight involved, only following official conventions or even simply their own dreams of domination. As for another example that might be more fitting this site's readership, 75% of people use Windows (archive) (MozArchive) and 15% macOS. So, 90% defaults on bought computers. Where is the planning? And we don't even know what's under "others" so the situation might actually be worse. Only 2% of people are certain to actually have set up their OS in a planned way. And I'm sure we'd find the same principle everywhere else - the vast majority of "adults" settling for the official and popular.

Inability to Understand Political Rhetoric

Adults are better at seeing through the veil when there are ulterior motives at play.

Oh yeah, they were totally amazing during the Kirk fiasco when they swallowed the utter demolition of their beloved free speech (archive) (MozArchive). Or during Covid when they accepted total slavery. Hey, I just got compelled to look inside my own corner of the globe. I checked whether Poles are supportive of forced military "service". My prediction was that yes, at least half will have fallen for pro-war propaganda. And that's exactly what transpired when I saw the poll (archive) (MozArchive). Only 36% were against; 55% for (the rest "unsure" which to me pretty much means for, as they don't mind preparing innocent men to die in war). Insanely, even the "New Left" (and yes, this is an actual left-wing party, not like USA democrats) voters were only 55% against. What the fuck? It should be at least 90% "go die in war yourself, you psychos!". And yes, this does prove the effectiveness of political propaganda, as 3 years back only 35% of Poles were supporting military slavery (and mainstream media war pushing has peaked this year). I could give so many more examples - like invading Iraq due to (false flag) September 11 attacks (even Edward Snowden fell for it), increased surveillance due to "terrorism", banning phones in schools to save the attention spans of the kids (and totally not because they need to learn to be good slaves) and so on - but is it even necessary? It's so obvious political propaganda works!

You know what? I'm tired of this already. This section has a lot more words but it's all meaningless sludge. The author never provides any references for anything he vomits out, and it's all such obvious nonsense driven by hate and being a control freak that I can't be bothered to respond to it anymore. So I'll stop right here. It seems that there is no "real" reason to disallow kids from voting, only attempts at domination by angry old people who really want a "lower group" to abuse.

Parental abuse horror stories

Lifted from the subreddit EstrangedAdultChild:

My Experience being NC with my mother for 6 years (archive) (MozArchive)

Now what she did to make me leave might sound anti climatic I mean I endured so much for all those years and put up with the abuse, but that was all under the impression that when i turned 18 I would be my own adult and could make decisions without her and leave if i so pleased. My mother did not see it that way, she told me that night after picking me up from a late shift at my job that I she thought my managers were crossing a line with my schedule meaning I was at work too much instead of at home doing random chores for her. That because she had made me get a joint bank account with her that means she gets to control all of my money for my whole adult life.

She chooses what goes to her from my paycheck the hours i get to work and even where i work is all her decision to make even after I'm 18. She told me I am never moving out of her house and that I will start paying rent and all the other expenses I owe her for raising me. That i will go to university only if she chooses it and that I will never see my high school friends or boyfriend again. She dropped all of this on me in one night and all i could do was sob and cry as she screamed at me. I started to record her on my phone all the crazy things she was saying to me so I could send it to my dad and boyfriend for reassurance that she is just as threatening as I felt she was being.

I tried to picture what my life would be like If i continued to do whatever she said and it was so sad and bleak I genuinely felt that If i stayed in that house for much longer I would have taken my own life just so I wouldn't have to exist in her twisted idea of what my adult life was going to be. So that morning while she was at work I grabbed a handful of my things and I left. My brother who was only 13 at the time wanted to come with me, but it broke my heart to tell him that where we lived you had to be at least 16 to leave your parents care on your own accord.

Mom stopped letting me hang out with my little brother over voice chat because "I don't think that you think I'm a good mother" (archive) (MozArchive)

The last few weeks she hasn't had my little brother go on when it was time for us to play and talk (once a week we talk while playing games because she decided to move a 9 hour drive away). She takes his computer (which my 2 older siblings bought him) when he isn't playing with either my or my older brother, if you're wondering why he doesn't come on by himself. Anyway, she called me a few minutes ago just to talk, which she just does occasionally. We were on the phone for a few minutes when I remembered that James wasn't able to join James time the past few weeks. I asked if he would be able to join this week, to which she immediately asks if I think she's a good mother.

[...]

Anyway, we ended the conversation with her bringing my 5 year old little sister into it, saying that we can't do James time, and that she's done talking about this. Wtf is wrong with her, I literally just miss my little brother and want to spend time with him.

Surviving DV by a parent and not being believed by anyone (archive) (MozArchive)

My mom hit me all the time, broke my things in rages, pushed ne out of the car into a snowbank 15 miles from my house, and locked me in a closet often as a young child.

My therapist recommended I write letters to my toxic family members as part of my healing process. I don’t plan on sending them; instead, I am writing them for closure. Here’s one that I wrote for my mother. What are yours? (archive) (MozArchive)

[...]

You hurt me. You physically hurt me when I was just a small child. You would hit me with a hairbrush when I couldn’t sit still, and act like it was nothing. You called it discipline. I now know it was abuse. It doesn’t matter how you justified it to yourself — you hurt me. You taught me from the beginning that love came with violence, shame, and fear. And you still refuse to acknowledge the damage you caused. As I grew older, the cruelty continued. When my body started changing during puberty, you chose to shame me instead of nurture me. You made fun of my body, picking apart my appearance at a time when I was most vulnerable. You taught me to feel disgusted with myself when I should have been learning to feel proud and strong.

You didn’t stop there. Instead of building a family where I could feel safe, you weaponized my siblings against me. You enabled them to bully me, to gang up on me, to ridicule me whenever I tried to create happiness or live my own life. You encouraged them to cross boundaries, to invade my privacy, to make me feel like an outsider in my own home. There were constant double standards — they were allowed freedom, forgiveness, and privacy, while I was controlled, criticized, and punished for simply trying to grow into myself. I was treated like an outsider in my own family, while they were protected and favored. You made it clear over and over again that their mistakes were excusable, but my existence was somehow wrong.

[...]

After more than 10 years of NC, I got a diabolical "gift" from my mom (archive) (MozArchive)

For context and background, Mom's abuses included but were not limited to:

General manipulation, control, and gaslighting

Pushing for enmeshment

Rage at any resistance or disagreement from me, just terrifying explosive anger, cruel verbal abuse, and some incidents of physical aggression

Forced teaming to get me to help her enable my brother and protect him from appropriate consequences

Constant criticism of my life choices, clothes, body, finances, friends, pick your poison

Insistence of handling any adult tasks herself to be overly involved in my life, thereby keeping me from learning how to do things myself like taxes, buying a car, applying for school or work opportunities, etc. to keep me helpless and dependent upon her

Obvious double standard in her treatment of me vs. favoritism toward my brother

Competing with me, her child, in bizarre ways and blatantly stealing my thunder during my life events, making my milestones all about her--or her favored kid

Minimizing any of my achievements, minimizing any problems I have too

Refusal to accept a "no" of any kind--constant pressure, guilting, threats, manipulation, begging, cajoling, and if all that failed, bulldozing and doing whatever she wants anyway

Loan-sharking, like, gifts or assistance that are meticulously tracked/score-kept, and riddled with hidden strings

Boundary violations (stalking me online, constant phone calls, sneaking into my diary as a kid, telling me WAY too much about her own intimate relations and those of other family members, using any info I shared with her in confidence to harm me later)

The worst and most unforgivable: Failure to protect me from a predatory neighbor when I was under 5 years old, not reporting this neighbor to any authorities once I told my parents what was happening, remaining friendly with this neighbor after my CSA, not getting me any counseling or treatment after CSA

I’m 21, struggling with lifelong trauma, chronic illness, and feeling unvalued— I just want peace and a way to start life over (MozArchive):

Fast-forward to more recent years — about 3.5 years ago, I suddenly became severely sick. Every joint in my body started paining. I couldn’t place my feet on the floor; I couldn’t walk or run like before. I started having anxiety and suffocation.

And since I had trained myself not to talk about my problems, I hid everything for two months — until it got much worse. When I finally told my parents, they dismissed it, thinking it was nothing — all in my head.

It took seven months for them to finally ask if I wanted to go to a doctor.

During this time, my health got even worse. I couldn’t even move my hands to write or hold a glass. I started getting involuntary jerking movements throughout my body and insomnia at night.

After graduation, I took a one-year break. Now, I’m in the first year of my MBA and currently not working. My family doesn’t say it outright, but I can feel the pressure — they want me to start earning, to be “normal.”

Solution for parental abuse

The child should be able to leave its oppressor(s) (AKA parents) by the snap of the finger. Of course, ideally, everyone should have that option - but there are specific reasons that it's particularly crucial for the child:

The children can't (and shouldn't have to) work, or even own a bank account without their parents' involvement, so the "regular" way of leaving their oppressors (by renting an apartment, etc) is impossible for them.
It's much harder, often impossible, for kids (especially the younger ones) to resist their oppressors in a way that actually bothers them.
Since the kids are younger, the traumas affect them more deeply.
The children had no agency in choosing their parents; there has been no marriage, no swearing allegiance to the flag, no nothing. In fact, you could say that the implicit wov was made by the parents - "Because I summoned you here, I will treat you with respect and care to the best of my ability". But today, no one cares and instead they do everything to dominate and destroy their kids.

But can they actually escape? Here (archive) (MozArchive) is the first result for the query fleeing parents as a minor. Funnily enough, it's actually one of the only two resulting links (in five pages of DDG) that actually considers the situation of the child wanting to flee; all the others talk about fleeing with your child as an abused partner, or other even less relevant things. So once again, we can see that the child's opinion does not matter, because how could a pet or toy be allowed to resist abuse? Anyway, let's see what it says:

If you live in an abusive home, it’s important to learn how to escape your abusive parents. You deserve to be treated with love, care, and respect.

Will this result in effective action, or just remain an empty slogan? Let's find out:

Unfortunately, as a minor, you don’t have many options since you are under your parents’ legal authority. However, I will do my best to let you know all the possible options you may consider to escape your abusive parents.

Ha! Of course. The "minor" (pet) is under the parents' (oppressors) legal authority to keep it there and torture how they wish.

Other than physical and sexual abuse, if your parents call you names, insult you, put you down, parentifies you, gaslight you, ignore your feelings, treat you as lesser than, or blame you for their problems, then they are likely abusive.

Okay, at least the author realizes abuse isn't limited to beatings. Off to a decent start. But does she have solutions?

Do you have a relative or trusted neighbor you can reach out to? How about a teacher, guidance counselor, or doctor? It’s really helpful to have an adult you can talk to about problems at home.

Implying those will not just take the side of the parent. Also, how will that prevent having to come back to your abuser and endure his violations again? This suggestion is extremely patronising, as if the kid's problems somehow aren't serious enough and will evaporate if it "just talks" to someone.

It’s also possible that a relative can let you stay with them from time to time so you can at least temporarily escape your abuse. An adult might also be able to help you learn independence and prepare for your escape.

Same as above. Older friend that is still young and not fully degraded by "adultism" might be a better option. But an abusive parent will often prevent their kid from having such friends in the first place.

Try to keep a record of your parents’ abusive behavior. These can be audio or video recordings, photos, texts, or emails they’ve sent you. They can even be your own written accounts of things they say or do to you. Include any medical attention or witnesses for every incident if possible.

They surely won't notice you recording. Also, can't you see how this is just putting more burdens onto the victim? She has to gather all this evidence and hope the government bothers to care at some point, while the bulls keep trampling all over her. Of course, even if she manages to convince the relevant institutions, all they can offer her is foster care. Which the author describes as such:

This means constantly changing families, homes, schools, and friends. The lack of stability can cause you to fall behind academically. It can also cause distress as you’re struggling to adapt to these constant changes.

It can be scary knowing how abusive people can become certified foster parents. It shows that they’re good at hiding their abuse.

Another possible issue is dealing with bullying from other kids. However, if you talk to your caseworker or any other staff at the agency about what’s happening, they’ll usually do their best to help you.

Of course - just because the kid manages to escape their abusers to the foster home - doesn't mean (archive) (MozArchive) its life will suddenly become amazing:

Evidence shows that children in out-of-home care face greater risks for poor health, social and educational outcomes because of adverse early life experiences such as maltreatment and poverty. Placing children in family-based care environments can reduce risks of mental health problems and other negative consequences associated with maltreatment. However, the experience of being in out-of-home care itself can have independent deleterious effects over the life course, and children in group or institutional settings in particular experience elevated developmental, cognitive and social risks.

So, the official ways of helping - even if they graciously manage to get applied - don't result in positive effects for the childrens' lives (later in this section, I will propose solutions that seem more hopeful to me). Of course, the government isn't guaranteed to do anything at all, either way - as the author admits:

Depending on who your parents are and how well they can hide their abusive behavior, CPS might not find anything wrong with them or your home. That’s why it’s important to have a record of the abuse with you so you can show them if needed.

While it’s easier to prove physical abuse and easier for workers to take sexual abuse seriously, emotional abuse is in a whole other realm.

Even with evidence, workers might not take emotional abuse seriously. Having evidence of the abuse and how it’s affecting you might cause them to care. But it’s not guaranteed.

So basically, only beatings end up mattering in the end. Anything else, you'll just have to endure, pet! Hey, they basically admit (archive) (MozArchive) that the entire child protection thing is actually oppressor-centered:

If your family is referred to us, 90% of the time we are able to support you over the phone or with a visit to your home. When someone reports a concern about child abuse or neglect, we:

assess each call and referral

determine if the concern fits the legal definition of abuse or neglect described in the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act

provide intervention services only when the legal definition of abuse or neglect is met and you, as parent or guardian, need some help creating safety for your child

refer your family to other services and supports when intervention services are not needed

We help you and your family in many different ways, such as:

helping you understand how to keep your child or youth safe and well

working with you and your family, extended family, cultural connections, community partners and others to address concerns

developing a safety plan with you so your child can stay at home and be safe

doing everything we can to make sure your child is safe when you are unable to – this may include legal methods that protect them by placing them in temporary or permanent care

determining the best care options and supports to help you, your child and family if your child is placed in care – this includes identifying who in your family and support network could be an alternative caregiver if needed

providing your child with services and supports when they are in care and becoming independent young adults

The predominant assumption is that "the family" "just needs help" handling their kid, which can't ever be a victim of an abuser with an agency and desire to simply leave! But it gets worse:

Some adults are biased toward minors, especially teenagers. CPS workers are no different. They might assume that because you’re young, you’re dramatic or rebellious. Or they might even think that you’re the one abusing your parents.

As messed up as it sounds, some workers might even be in this job for the power. They might not care at all what happens to you or your parents. They just want to know that they are the authority figures in the situation and that whatever they decide goes.

Isn't it just like I said earlier? Insecure "adults" looking to dominate and abuse the youth?

When you don’t want to involve CPS because you’re scared of ending up in another abusive home or you don’t want to be controlled by adults, running away might be the only answer you have. But before you resort to this, ask yourself these questions first.

Where will you live? How will you support yourself? What if you come across people worse than your parents?

Yeah. It's either rely on an abuser-loving government, or flee to nowhere. Even then, there is this:

Also, realize that your parents have the right to call the cops and report you missing. If and when you’re found, you might be forced to return to them or put into a juvenile detention center if you’ve committed any crimes during your time as a runaway.

Your abusers might drag you back anyway. What if you have someone willing to take you in?

If you have a relative or family friend that is willing to take you in, that is a reasonable option as long as your parents are okay with it. That way, you can avoid the possible downfalls of dealing with CPS or running away.

However, remember that even if you’re living elsewhere, your parents still have rights over you until you’re legally an adult. You will still need their consent on things like healthcare, education, and such. They can also make certain decisions for you or make you return home at any point whether you like it or not.

Same shit. Even if you did everything you could to resolve your situation by yourself, you'll still have to rely on the mercy of your abusers. Not that just giving the minors legal rights to escape would be sufficient; if they don't know anyone willing to house them, and lack ways to earn enough money by themselves, it's not going to actually resolve their problems. Anyway, I'm tired of this. I even inspected many studies about this topic, which I'm not going to bore you with, but the vibe I got from them was that the parents always try their best for their child, so if there are problems in the family, it's always external factors like poverty and you need months of inspections and interviews and parental education to "fix" the situation. The parents cannot simply be assholes looking to dominate their child (even though the relevant subreddits prove there is an epidemic of that; yet I doubt anyone will dare to study it scientifically, so solid stats cannot be provided at the moment), and the abused cannot just decide to get up and leave (because, it's a "minor" and too stupid, naive, inexperienced, etc... to be allowed to escape its torture, no matter how serious...right?). Hanlon's razor is truly cancer; diggy's razor (the one in which we assume malice unless it can be conclusively dismissed) on the other hand, cuts the abusers' dreams of domination down and lets the victim leave. But that's just me dreaming; in the current world, it's clear that there are no solutions that are actually victim-centered, ever being applied. What could those be, though?

Maybe have trucks designed to be summoned to take away someone who feels he is oppressed - to one of the at least tens of millions of empty homes worldwide (archive) (MozArchive), if you're wondering about the destination. They would work like the fire department (because living with an abuser pretty much is a fire situation). This should take care of most of the serious cases. Of course, it would have to be done properly (unlike today); no interrogations, inspections that only let the oppressors speechcraft their way to victory and continued abuse. But even that would still require the child to make an action; what if it's scared? What if it lacks a phone or the parents restricted its Internet usage? What if it's too young to realize it's being abused? We could rely on the surveillance state and their gang of social workers, but it's not only moving abuse elsewhere - it's also ineffective. Quite often, what the state thinks is abuse isn't really (avoiding vaccines, using dietary supplements, etc), and vice versa (shoving food, etc). But does it mean parents should be given free reign? Obviously not, as that would keep the highest potential source of children's oppression unrestricted and make this entire article pointless. So how do we prevent child abuse without a surveillance state?

You could say that libertarian "self ownership" is a solution, and the acceptance of childrens' independence and agency would indeed partially help them (today, it's always "we need to do something to this kid" and never "we need to provide opportunities so that the kid is able to itself decide how it wants to live"), but it's too simplistic. Again, many libertarians think you only own yourself if you can sustain yourself. In today's culture, it is very unlikely for a child to be able to earn money - at least enough for it to be able to reliably leave its parents. Especially if you take libertarian ideas about property rights into the account; AKA "you are on my property, you only do what I allow you". In that case, the parent could just deny the usage of equipment that allows the kid to work, eg a computer, preventing the escape. I like the fact that libertarians recognize the child's right to control itself, but it is a poor solution to this specific problem. If the only way for the child to gain freedom is to leave its parents, then it becomes effectively impossible, as it simply dies outside. You need at least some in-built rights that appear just because you were born. Parents should not be able to do everything to you just because you happen to occupy their property that they decided to summon you to.

What about if it's a "really good parent" (a mythical creature I have never encountered)? Does he deserve to have his kid run away just like that? Well, it would not happen in that case, as there would be no reason to flee from someone who treats you properly! On the other hand, many children are staying with their abusive parents today exclusively because there is no other realistic option. If you apply market logic, then parents have an effective monopoly. There needs to be actual competition, actual choice for the kids. Not one that's just on paper (like Mozilla against Google). But one that's widely available, and relatively easy to use, and not actually worse than the parents you're fleeing from. This would actually put pressure on the parents to perform better, if they didn't "know" they could just do whatever they want since their kid(s) have to stay with them anyway. I mean, think what you want about the "free market" (I obviously am not a big fan of it), but at least there's some actual choice. If you want to skip the shitty supermarket bread or fake Chinese honey (archive) (MozArchive) or Italian mafia olive oil (archive) (MozArchive) - health foods stores are common. Nothing like that exists for parents, and no one is tackling this problem.

It is times like these that I wish I had a billion dollars so that I could build shelters for kids all over the world so that they could flee from their psycho parents without requirements or expectations. But of course, even then the legal system would try to prevent it. Why? Because the policymakers themselves have kids that they'd like (or would have liked, if they are already too old for that) to keep on a leash. In fact, I am not sure if my proposal would have a chance to succeed at all. It seems that - everytime someone has a kid - they turn into an "animal tamer". In that case, they would be against giving them respect and freedom. Since no politician considers the kids in any of their decisions (unless they want to use them as an excuse for censorship, etc), and they themselves are not allowed to vote, and no parent wants to let theirs off the leash - what remains for the abused kids? Somehow, the culture that considers children as pets, or at the very least "not full people", has to change. Maybe some movies or games made with this theme in mind would help? In today's culture, I fear parents would just tie their kids to the heater so they wouldn't flee, protest outside my shelter, maybe even burn it down; that is how entrenched the idea of "kid as toy" is.

One other way, which I think is natural for people, is to live in tribes (a village is a replica in the modern day), instead of "nuclear families". Simply, in such a case, the other tribe or village members would be able to see or hear the abuse, and ideally stand up to "toxic" the tribe member. The child would also be easily able to flee to a neighbor. Today, in an average apartment block the neighbors don't even know each other, and constantly change. Every place is just temporary to move in and out of, so there are no connections to be made. Especially since most people spend the majority of their time at a job, and the so-called "third spaces" have been killed (archive) (MozArchive). Even if someone notices abuse, he won't care as again, an apartment block isn't a tribe. At most he might call the police or a social worker who could easily ignore the situation or even make it worse (what do you think would happen if the abusive parent learned of the report?). If a child tried to flee its abusers, I very much doubt any modern neighbor would let it in. I don't know how to fix the situation since surely there are too many people in the world, for them all to fit into villages? And even then, individualism is so rampant that moving them there might not do anything anymore. But something has to be done.

The "it's for their safety" myth demolished

It's interesting (or funny, or pathethic, or all of them) what kind of fancy stories people will come up with just to justify their desire to dominate and torture their kids. This time, both governments and plebeians use the same excuse - the one where they (pretend to) defend the poor, undeveloped, "immature" child from the cruel and dangerous outside world by...keeping them on a leash. I mean, the entire basis for this can easily be disproved by noting that an "adult" is just as much in danger. They can be run over, beaten, raped, mugged, threatened, or violated in all kinds of other ways people can execute. Not to mention all the other dangers that await them that are not directly related to people's actions; getting attacked by an animal, struck by lightning, slipping and falling over, getting hit by a falling tree, getting lost and being unable to come back. The world is dangerous, and the only way to truly "protect" someone from it would be locking them completely away from it. Even that wouldn't be enough as your own family could turn out to be abusers similar to the strangers.

But even if being a child was a "risk factor" for being violated, should it actually matter? After all, many other groups incur a higher chance of danger, and yet they are not getting chained. Let's check out some stats (archive) (MozArchive) (I will not question those, as it would take too long; just assume the official is correct as what matters to this issue is the impression, anyway):

People who are bisexual experienced a rate of 541 sexual assault incidents per 1,000 population––nearly 29 times higher than the rate among heterosexual Canadians (19 per 1,000)
Women with a disability are sexually assaulted at a high rate. There were 94 incidents of sexual assault for every 1,000 women with a disability in 2019, a rate over four times higher than that among women without a disability
First Nations, Inuit, and Metis people in Canada are at increased risk of violence: for example, a Canadian national inquiry found that Indigenous women and girls are 16 times more likely to be slain or to disappear than white women
People who are bisexual experienced a rate of 541 sexual assault incidents per 1,000 population––nearly 29 times higher than the rate among heterosexual Canadians (19 per 1,000)

We don't enslave non-white races despite their danger of being violated being 16 times higher. Neither do we enslave the bisexuals which suffer sexual abuse at a rate of more than 50% (this somehow seems wrong, but I'm going to accept it because again, it's only the common beliefs that matter in judging whether the child slavery is justified). And if you wanted to say that the kids need to be enslaved because they are less able to defend themselves, the fact that disabled women - despite being probably even weaker than (healthy) kids / teens - are still free to absorb the danger should bury that argument.

The simple realization that in practice, neither governments nor parents actually care about child safety, is an even more direct and fatal strike at the heart of this myth. This is easy to show through the fact that close to all kids are still getting sent to school, which threatens their safety through (for example) the possibility of being slammed to the ground by a cop (archive) (MozArchive), and of course the extreme prevalence of bullying sometimes leading to suicide (archive) (MozArchive).

In my entire life, I have never known a parent that actually cared about his kids. Everyone had sent them to the torture chamber known as school, which to me, alone eliminates them (and the law can't even be an excuse here because in Poland, you can actually fill a form to take your child out of there). And if you think it's unfair that I'm using something so entrenched, so unquestioned as school to alone judge parents for - I can look at many other issues. For example, people really don't care what they feed their kids. They will skip breastfeeding to shove them formula full of seed oil (archive) (MozArchive). They will pick anything that calls itself "kid food" on the shelf, and not even consider for a second what's in there or what effects it's going to have on the child's health. Of course, they also shove them the food; they spy on them (in modern times through gadgets like smartwatches or phones); they lock them into the house. If you think my standards for good parenting seem "high", it's only because today's people cannot even satisfy the absolute basics.

It might seem like I'm being cynical by attacking all parents and adults in general, etc. Yeah, I am and I think it's justified these days. Of course, adults are not inherently broken - it's our current culture, ideas, etc. ruining them. It's a disease spreading from generation to generation and evolving to be worse each multiplication. But like any infection it can be handled and eradicated. I think the "optimal" human psychology is that of a child, and in a good environment it would remain until death. It just so happens we have a particularly toxic one so that the first thing we do to kids is to teach them how to...not be kids. And so, by the time they leave school, they are lucky if any remnants of humanity are still present in them. A modern "adult" is just a child with accumulated traumas, assumptions and blockages; plus more arrogance, selfishness, and disrespect - and is also so frozen that you basically can't change him, as in the saying "can't teach an old dog new tricks".

Summary

Kids and teens are the most discriminated group of all time - and absolutely no one talks about it. Sending them to school is alone a bigger violation than all the other groups, combined, have to endure. And once again, I don't mind if those complain too, but you have to have priorities. Yet, the priorities today are that all the other discrimination is heavily covered everywhere; they have their institutions, etc. while the kids and teens have nothing, zlich, nada, zero (or sub-zero, as the purported responses such as police, therapists or social workers make things worse). Everyone has accepted treating young people as not even second, but third class citizens, or even pets (which are actually treated better). The left even considers shoving them into school as a "right" they should all be able to have (archive) (MozArchive). A right! Like the woman's "right" to be locked in a basement and used as a sex toy! Like the black's "right" to work on a plantation! What a cruel joke.

How to fix?

Interestingly, you can do it yourself. Since all of the discrimination depends on "adults" treating kids and teens as a lower class, stop doing that! The next time you encounter a young person, don't "switch your modes" of operation. Act exactly like you'd do with an "adult" - and yes, I mean with the 5 year olds too, not just the teens. You might be surprised that the child has hobbies and stories to tell and all the other stuff that the "adult" is assumed to. The only way it wouldn't, is exactly because the "adults" in his life prevented him from such, or destroyed it psychologically by domination:

A person complaining about how a child is considered good if it is obedient, but that just means it's absorbing mental disease

If they want to do "illegal" stuff, let them! You are not some kind of cuck that obeys the government automatically, are you? You might realize then, that the only reason they wanted it in the first place, was so that they could feel like a person that's in control of her life! Yes, as usual, the "protecting" of children from alcohol, etc. backfires because the forbidden fruit is the attractive one. Suddenly, the cravings disapear once the kid realizes it's a person just like any other and doesn't have to prove anything anymore.

Yet I feel that many "adults" have some kind of programming that automatically reacts to interactions with kids with some kind of fear or shame (those that don't want to actively dominate them, anyway). They are so worried about some kind of a disaster that will strike if they dare to give the child any kind of agency. Don't do that; there's nothing to be fearful or ashamed about - the kid is as much of a human as you are, and the disaster is what's happening right now! If they have problems with their parents, teachers, etc. don't just dismiss them or shove them into the "official" options of child protection (which are oppressor-centered), etc - actually help them avoid the abuse just like you'd an "adult"! If you are one of those boomers complaining about how rude or whatever the "kids these days" are, consider why that is so. Maybe because they've been treated like pets for their entire lives? No, that can't be; they must have some kind of in-built defect. At least, that's what the boomer looking to justify his domination would like to assume!

If you have a high position as a doctor, therapist, psychologist, social worker, teacher, etc. then you have even more opportunities. Again, actually treat the kid like a human and resolve its problems with the abusive "adults" in its life. Your attitude is very important to the child's future self esteem. If even the person who's supposed to "help it" becomes just another abusive obstacle, the kid will internalize its worthlessness; if the opposite happens - it might begin reaching the skies. Choose wisely - do you want to follow blindly the official ways of treating "minors" like circus animals, or be the based revolutionary who contributes to their recovery and fulfillment? Many kids have nothing and no one, so just one event in which they feel cared for can change their world and reveal all kinds of opportunities. If you're involved in politics, then try to strike down all kinds of anti-youth laws like the recent Internet censorship ones. I realize that a single deputy might not be able to do much, but still - it's better than nothing and at least you'll have your conscience left intact. Yet, the person with perhaps the most power is the parent! So if you have a kid, don't fall into the trap of trying to dominate it. The "high" you'll get from that will be short-lived, hollow, and probably painful in the end unless you're a narcissist. Long term satisfaction will only be had by fighting for your kid's rights! Sadly, from what I've seen, the parent is often the kid's worst enemy.

Other than that, we'll just have to wait for cultural change, in which the child is actually considered human. This might take a long time, or might not happen at all because people with the highest positions simply love domination - and kids are the easiest targets for that. Whoever is interested in ultimate rule knows he has to target the children because those are the ones that will become adults at some point and spread the obedience disease. However, many "regular" people are exactly like this, too - just with less opportunities. For cultural change, again - the creation of movies and games based on the theme of treating kids like actual people, might speed things up. Then just hope that that reaches the decision makers, or alternatively - if enough regular people get convinced and are ready for action - we just take over the abusive systems straight.

Back to the front page

Will the real oppressed group please stand up?

Introduction

Evidence for oppression

Shoving food

Restricting Internet access

Medical treatment

No political representation

Parental abuse horror stories

Solution for parental abuse

The "it's for their safety" myth demolished

Summary

How to fix?