NationStates Jolt Archive

I read a interesing article about how some malls are requiring people under the age of 17 at certain times have to leave the mall or be escorted by someone 21 or older in the mall.

This got me thinking. Although the mall is a privately owned bussiness, they can't say, "No blacks, whites only!" (racism) or say, "Men only, no women," (sexism). If sexism and racism or any other type of desrimination aren't acceptable (and I agree that they shouldn't be), then why would ageism be allowed? :confused:

Discuss.

Ageism is considered socially acceptable unless you target older people, specifically 50+ year olds. I do not like this, it is not my opinion, but it is a fact.

Because age-based discrimination is sociopolitically acceptable unless you're a member of the powerful 'old people' voting bloc. It's unjust and a bitch, but it is so.

Agism is perfectly reasonable for many circumstances, people who are not old enough to have developed sufficient motor skills should not be allowed to drive.

Is this thread just going to be a bunch of teenagers complaining about how this is unfair, or are we actually going to discuss the impact of actual ageism in our society, such as the rampant discrimination against women who aren't young and nubile?

Agism is perfectly reasonable for many circumstances, people who are not old enough to have developed sufficient motor skills should not be allowed to drive.

Yet old people do not lose their licenses after being tested at a certain age, even though their motor skills, sensory acuity, and reaction times decrease drastically as they pass into their sixties and seventies. What does that say?

And even aside, that has nothing to do with this. Legitimate physiological concerns for developmental suitability to engage in an activity is completely separate from general, purposeless broad social discrimination against a a large age group.

Walking around a mall is in no way impeded by age if you're over 13 or so. The business(es) are just discriminating against people of the 13-17 age group because they attach a universal assumption of unruliness, untrustworthiness, or other distasteful traits to everyone in that group, just like white business owners did to blacks before such practices were illegalized.

What makes it any more right? Why should teenagers be held to a different standard than adults? If they break the rules, fine, kick 'em out. But assuming guilt before the fact and holding one group to a higher standard than the other is at base nothing better than discriminatory bullshit.

Is this thread just going to be a bunch of teenagers complaining about how this is unfair, or are we actually going to discuss the impact of actual ageism in our society, such as the rampant discrimination against women who aren't young and nubile?

This is an internet forum, what do you think it's going to be?

What makes it any more right? Why should teenagers be held to a different standard than adults? If they break the rules, fine, kick 'em out. But assuming guilt before the fact and holding one group to a higher standard than the other is at base nothing better than discriminatory bullshit.

Because teenagers ARE held to a different standard than adults.

What makes it any more right? Why should teenagers be held to a different standard than adults? If they break the rules, fine, kick 'em out. But assuming guilt before the fact and holding one group to a higher standard than the other is at base nothing better than discriminatory bullshit.


Its because they arent as reasonable or mature as adults.

Until you're ready to start letting children drive cars, buy weapons &c &c, you concede the point that age-based restrictions are valid.

Is this thread just going to be a bunch of teenagers complaining about how this is unfair, or are we actually going to discuss the impact of actual ageism in our society, such as the rampant discrimination against women who aren't young and nubile?

When you cry with dismay at discrimination out of one side of your mouth, and than exhibit a casually discriminatory, stereotyped attitude out of the other, you really undermine your own statements.

I'm 16. Yes, *shock*, I'm a teenager. Yet I'd hope to find that if I could poll everyone whom I've debated or 'talked' with on this and other forums, most would agree that I'm fairly articulate and intelligent, and worth discussing serious subjects with. They would probably even peg my age at higher than its real value.

Why? Because they assume everyone who isn't an adult is somehow inferior; they look for errors in grammar and spelling, rudeness, excessive crude humor, and inability to thoughtfully and intelligently discuss or debate serious topics. They make a discriminatory assumption that spreads to the way they causually refer to teenagers - the way you did.

This is no less of a stereotype, no less impolite and offensive, and no less a discriminatory, assumption-based attitude than racism or sexism. The fact that you declaim people's ingrained attitudes toward women who aren't sexually attractive while in the same sentence displaying a derogatory, stereotyped attitude towards my age group is very telling.

I'm 16. Yes, *shock*, I'm a teenager. Yet I'd hope to find that if I could poll everyone whom I've debated or 'talked' with on this and other forums, most would agree that I'm fairly articulate and intelligent, and worth discussing serious subjects with. They would probably even peg my age at higher than its real value.




Isnt it a strange coincidence that when people your age eventually grow up, they change their minds about this sort of thing.

Isn't ageism a core belief of the NAMBLA?

Its because they arent as reasonable or mature as adults.

a) A stereotype.
b) Immaterial. Again, you have every right to remove them from the premises and/or pursie disciplinary action if they do something wrong. You can even tell your security guards to watch the kids a bit harder than the adults. But excluding a certain age group because you make a generalized assumption about the entire bloc - namely, that they are guilty from the moment they wake up in the morning - is pure discrimination.

For example: I could reasonably, truthfully say that if I excluded lower-middle- to low-income African Americans from my mall, the rate of crime would decrease. It's not PC, it's not pretty, but it is factual. Would that make it right if I instituted such a policy? Would I be any less guilty of discrimination? No!

When you cry with dismay at discrimination out of one side of your mouth, and than exhibit a casually discriminatory, stereotyped attitude out of the other, you really undermine your own statements.

I'm 16. Yes, *shock*, I'm a teenager. Yet I'd hope to find that if I could poll everyone whom I've debated or 'talked' with on this and other forums, most would agree that I'm fairly articulate and intelligent, and worth discussing serious subjects with. They would probably even peg my age at higher than its real value.

Why? Because they assume everyone who isn't an adult is somehow inferior; they look for errors in grammar and spelling, rudeness, excessive crude humor, and inability to thoughtfully and intelligently discuss or debate serious topics. They make a discriminatory assumption that spreads to the way they causually refer to teenagers - the way you did.

This is no less of a stereotype, no less impolite and offensive, and no less a discriminatory, assumption-based attitude than racism or sexism. The fact that you declaim people's ingrained attitudes toward women who aren't sexually attractive while in the same sentence displaying a derogatory, stereotyped attitude towards my age group is very telling.

So, in fact, you are not going to discuss other examples of ageism, but instead harp on the ageism that is punishing you. Which indicates to me that you are less concerned with the actual rammifications of ageism in our society and more concerned with what happens to you. Yes, I will dismiss such a selfish argument. You doom yourself with your Because age-based discrimination is sociopolitically acceptable unless you're a member of the powerful 'old people' voting bloc. It's unjust and a bitch, but it is so., as the elderly are frequently, if not more so, subjected to age-based discrimination than younger people, yet you speak as if this is not so. Pretend to be intellectual all you want, but the fact that you complain about youth-based discrimination while dismissing the elderly is very telling.

I read a interesing article about how some malls are requiring people under the age of 17 at certain times have to leave the mall or be escorted by someone 21 or older in the mall.

This got me thinking. Although the mall is a privately owned bussiness, they can't say, "No blacks, whites only!" (racism) or say, "Men only, no women," (sexism). If sexism and racism or any other type of desrimination aren't acceptable (and I agree that they shouldn't be), then why would ageism be allowed? :confused:

Discuss.
What's odd is that a decent size of the malls income probably comes from teenagers. Doesn't make sense to alienate them.

Isnt it a strange coincidence that when people your age eventually grow up, they change their minds about this sort of thing.

Ah, and here you begin patronizing me, talking down to me, and treating me differently than you would had I told you I was a 30-year-old youth advocacy lobbyist. What does that say?

Ah, and here you begin patronizing me, talking down to me, and treating me differently than you would had I told you I was a 30-year-old youth advocacy lobbyist. What does that say?


I would have demanded credentials if you'd told me that.

There are all kinds of nuts in the world though, so in the end it wouldnt really have surprised me.

Answer my question:

Do you think it is a coincidence that when people your age grow up, they change their minds on this sort of thing?

What's odd is that a decent size of the malls income probably comes from teenagers. Doesn't make sense to alienate them.

Does it really? I would tend not to believe that.

One thing you have to remember as a minor you do not have the same rights as an adult. The magic number is 18. Until then you are the responsibility of your guardian unless you are emancipated by the courts. Alot of cities have curfews for minors. Such as at late hours of night and during school hours. So it is required sometimes by law to evict the minors that do not have adult supervision. Just a fact of life kids.

:rolleyes:
I don't think there should be a curfew imposed on teenagers by an organization. Only because their parents should be the ones imposing such curfews. Yes, good old mommy and daddy. Most teenagers aren't nearly as grownup as they think they are. It's hard to be grownup when you don't have any real responsabilities.

I'm 28 and i don't agree with this. I don't think teenagers should have to be escorted out of a mall just because they're a teenager. I don't think they are all irresponsible just because they are young. I know people older than me who are more irresponsible than certain teenagers i know. It's not fair to judge an entire group of any people based on the actions of some.

Driving is different, voting is different, drinking and having sex are different. Those are all responsibilities that can have serious consequences if not done properly and with some foresight and knowlege. Walking into a mall does not fall into that category unless you automatically assume any teenager is just going to vandalize something or steal.

I don't think older people should be discriminated against either though. We shouldn't assume that just because they are older they will drive really slow, or be ornery and set in their ways, or that they can't see or hear. My grandparents are in their 80's and fit none of those descriptions.

If someone breaks the law, by all means, punish them, but don't just assume someone is going to because of how old they are, or what the color of their skin is, etc.

Does it really? I would tend not to believe that.
Well if you think about it, who wanders the malls to sporadically shop everyday. Two groups, elderly in the morning and teens from about 3-till close. Until Christmas season comes around not that many adults spend too much time in the mall.

What's odd is that a decent size of the malls income probably comes from teenagers. Doesn't make sense to alienate them.
A decent size of the mall's income comes from the parents of teenagers.

And if you're really so upset about this, stop spending your money at the mall and encourage your friends and parents to do the same. Yes, this will mean going out of your way to get anything you want, but if you want to pretend you're an adult, then you'll have to learn about sacrifices.

Isnt it a strange coincidence that when people your age eventually grow up, they change their minds about this sort of thing.

When you get old enough you stop caring about something that no longer applies to you. That's not to say that a 13 year old should be allowed to drive (too much of a hazard), but it is to say that if an old person will be an equal hazard, they too should not be allowed to drive (wow, I wrote "live" as a typo here... That would have been comic).

There is a perfectly reasonable reason for some restrictions (on Porn, driving, drinking, etc.). Teens do not have fully developed senses of reason and can make poor descisions that adults would not make. That said, there are real examples of ageism (voting rights, the draft, this stupid curfew thing, new laws that allow teens to be arrested if they even appear intoxicated, dress codes that tend towards the taste of old people, etc.) which are just adults choosing to arbitrarily rule for no good reason.

So, in fact, you are not going to discuss other examples of ageism, but instead harp on the ageism that is punishing you. Which indicates to me that you are less concerned with the actual rammifications of ageism in our society and more concerned with what happens to you. Yes, I will dismiss such a selfish argument. You doom yourself with your , as the elderly are frequently, if not more so, subjected to age-based discrimination than younger people, yet you speak as if this is not so. Pretend to be intellectual all you want, but the fact that you complain about youth-based discrimination while dismissing the elderly is very telling.

I never "dismissed" the elderly. I simply stated the reason why age-based discrimination is illegal and not explicitly socially acceptable in their case: because they have a powerful political voice. Simple as that. I focused on youth-oriented "ageism" because that's the thread topic.

Don't get me wrong; I have no problem with the elderly, and I do not in any way, shape, or form condone age-based discrimination against senior citizens. But that doesn't mean I can't also be concerned about age-based discrimination against youth, whereas you are concerned about the elderly but have explicitly and derogatorily dismissed the concerns of anyone below the age of majority.

Well if you think about it, who wanders the malls to sporadically shop everyday. Two groups, elderly in the morning and teens from about 3-till close. Until Christmas season comes around not that many adults spend too much time in the mall.

If I think about it that way, then I would imagine that the adults that come to the malls around Christmas time and drop hundreds and hundreds of dollars outspend the teenagers who occasionally purchase a CD or Orange Julius.

Isn't ageism a core belief of the NAMBLA?

The North American Man-Boy Love Association? Or the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes?


As to the thread....meh. What about rated R movies? Drinking age? Driving a vehicle? Voting? All these things have age requirements- and they vary country by country. Yes, I think it is crap- but quit bitching- so you don't get to stay at the mall all night. You can get busted for pot or having sex with a 16 year old and NOT go to jail. So I say it's give and take. It's not fair, it's arbitrary, and a classic case of the old "age oppressing youth" syndrome.

But life's not fair. Welcome to reality.

When you get old enough you stop caring about something that no longer applies to you. That's not to say that a 13 year old should be allowed to drive (too much of a hazard), but it is to say that if an old person will be an equal hazard, they too should not be allowed to drive (wow, I wrote "live" as a typo here... That would have been comic).

There is a perfectly reasonable reason for some restrictions (on Porn, driving, drinking, etc.). Teens do not have fully developed senses of reason and can make poor descisions that adults would not make. That said, there are real examples of ageism (voting rights, the draft, this stupid curfew thing, new laws that allow teens to be arrested if they even appear intoxicated, dress codes that tend towards the taste of old people, etc.) which are just adults choosing to arbitrarily rule for no good reason.


Well, when I got older, I started worrying about all the havok kids would cause if they werent restrained responsibly.

After all, I remembered being that age.

I never "dismissed" the elderly. I simply stated the reason why age-based discrimination is illegal and not explicitly socially acceptable in their case: because they have a powerful political voice. Simple as that. I focused on youth-oriented "ageism" because that's the thread topic.

Don't get me wrong; I have no problem with the elderly, and I do not in any way, shape, or form condone age-based discrimination against senior citizens. But that doesn't mean I can't also be concerned about age-based discrimination against youth, whereas you are concerned about the elderly but have explicitly and derogatorily dismissed the concerns of anyone below the age of majority.

But age-based discrimination against the elderly is very much accepted by our society. Older people are brushed aside as senile and irrelevant. The "old people" voting bloc doesn't oppress you. The 18-49 bloc does.

You shot yourself in the foot with your very first post. Don't you dare accuse me of "explicitly and derogatorily" dismissing concerns of teenagers when you so casually not only dismissed ageism against the elderly, but blamed them for the ageism against you.

Well, when I got older, I started worrying about all the havok kids would cause if they werent restrained responsibly.

After all, I remembered being that age.

Knowing many of my peers I don't necessarily dissagree with you.

Then again, a bit of (careful) hooliganism never hurt anyone.

I would have demanded credentials if you'd told me that.

There are all kinds of nuts in the world though, so in the end it wouldnt really have surprised me.

Answer my question:

Do you think it is a coincidence that when people your age grow up, they change their minds on this sort of thing?

A coincidence? No. People tend to stop caring about something when it ceases to directly impact or involve them. Once people are no longer affected by the issue (or non-issue, for most of society) of youth rights, they stop caring about it.

Plenty of people, inside their heads, couldn't care less about minority rights, but if they were magically transmuted into a racial or sexual minority, you can be damn sure they'd hop on the political wagon very swiftly.

A decent size of the mall's income comes from the parents of teenagers.

And if you're really so upset about this, stop spending your money at the mall and encourage your friends and parents to do the same. Yes, this will mean going out of your way to get anything you want, but if you want to pretend you're an adult, then you'll have to learn about sacrifices.
Ahem, I am not a teen so you know so you can drop that idea. I worked in a mall, I saw this with my own eyes, it was my own experience. Though it is most likely the kids parents money, it is not the parents spending it. Regardless if the parent gives the kid $100 to spend or if it's the own kids money, it is the kid going to the mall and spending it. Teens would loose a lot of interest in going their if they needed mommy or daddy watching over them. If the kids don't want to go their...the money won't get spent there, regardless if it is the parents money or their own. If you really think groups of teens will still wander the mall for hours with a parent you are fooling yourself.

One more sidenote. I cannot stand the mall primarily because it is filled with 13 and 14 year old nuisances. I typically go to a downtown area to shop. So if you want to make up any other facts about me go ahead.

If I think about it that way, then I would imagine that the adults that come to the malls around Christmas time and drop hundreds and hundreds of dollars outspend the teenagers who occasionally purchase a CD or Orange Julius.
Yes that is true, for that season. What about the rest of the year? The stores need to bring in money all year, even if the vast majority is in the holiday season. That is where the teens, buying their occasional CD, Orange Julius, Clothing, movies and video games come in.

But age-based discrimination against the elderly is very much accepted by our society. Older people are brushed aside as senile and irrelevant. The "old people" voting bloc doesn't oppress you. The 18-49 bloc does.

The "old people" voting bloc consists of 30% of the voting population. It has the largest voting population of any of the "age groups". 40 somethings and 30 somethings are close though.

I will be 63 years old in less than one month. When I was a teenager, 100 or so years ago, the city next to the one I lived in had a curfew for anyone under the age of 18. We always made sure we were out of that city before curfew.

Hey, that type of restriction has always been around so you might as well deal with it.

P.S. Did I complain? Hell yes, but not to my parrents as both of them were on police departments and my aunt worked for the FBI. :(

But age-based discrimination against the elderly is very much accepted by our society. Older people are brushed aside as senile and irrelevant. The "old people" voting bloc doesn't oppress you. The 18-49 bloc does.

You shot yourself in the foot with your very first post. Don't you dare accuse me of "explicitly and derogatorily" dismissing concerns of teenagers when you so casually not only dismissed ageism against the elderly, but blamed them for the ageism against you.

This is the second time that you've put words in my mouth, or text in my fingers as the case may be. I never said that the elderly voting bloc "oppressed me". Reading the stereotypical teenage complaint of "the man is getting me down" into my comments when no such sentiment exists or was expressed? Sure sounds like it to me.

Again, I did not dismiss ageism against the elderly. I gave a reason why the concerns and problems of the elderly in political matters were actually paid attention to: because they have political power. I never blamed them for problems with youth rights, and I never dismissed their problems.

It seems to me that you're looking for any excuse to box me in to the "immature child not to be listened to" label and deny or justify your discriminatory attitude against youth.

The "old people" voting bloc consists of 30% of the voting population. It has the largest voting population of any of the "age groups". 40 somethings and 30 somethings are close though.

I don't see how that's possible, as the segment of the population past retirement is roughly 13% of the US population, while the adult working segment of the population is around 65% of the population.

Ahem, I am not a teen so you know so you can drop that idea. I worked in a mall, I saw this with my own eyes, it was my own experience. Though it is most likely the kids parents money, it is not the parents spending it. Regardless if the parent gives the kid $100 to spend or if it's the own kids money, it is the kid going to the mall and spending it. Teens would loose a lot of interest in going their if they needed mommy or daddy watching over them. If the kids don't want to go their...the money won't get spent there, regardless if it is the parents money or their own. If you really think groups of teens will still wander the mall for hours with a parent you are fooling yourself.

One more sidenote. I cannot stand the mall primarily because it is filled with 13 and 14 year old nuisances. I typically go to a downtown area to shop. So if you want to make up any other facts about me go ahead.
They could still boycott it if they really deceided they didn't like the treatment they were getting.

By the way, as a former mall rat (though from the ages of 16-18) I can tell you that I usually stayed around until dinner time and then went home, occasionally finding something cheap to eat on the way out. I would spend less than $10 a week at the mall. Just because teenagers are everywhere in the mall doesn't mean they're buying anything.

It seems to me that you're looking for any excuse to box me in to the "immature child not to be listened to" label and deny or justify your discriminatory attitude against youth.

And it seems to me that you're looking to justify your previous statement that the elderly do not suffer ageism as great as poor widdle you.

I don't see how that's possible, as the segment of the population past retirement is roughly 13% of the US population, while the adult working segment of the population is around 65% of the population.

"Old People" consisting of those over 55.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf

Check the 4th page.

Partially the affect of the Baby Boom though.

I don't see how that's possible, as the segment of the population past retirement is roughly 13% of the US population, while the adult working segment of the population is around 65% of the population.

Ah, but not every member of every age group votes. Older people vote much more than their younger counterparts, perhaps because they in some ways have more stake in political decisions: Medicare and SocSec are all about them, and their tendency towards traditional morality gives them more reason to go to the polls as well. Regardless, though, the fact is that the elderly make up a disproportionate segment of that part of the population that actually votes.

They could still boycott it if they really deceided they didn't like the treatment they were getting.

By the way, as a former mall rat (though from the ages of 16-18) I can tell you that I usually stayed around until dinner time and then went home, occasionally finding something cheap to eat on the way out. I would spend less than $10 a week at the mall. Just because teenagers are everywhere in the mall doesn't mean they're buying anything.
On the converse I knew girls that would spend at least $50 each time they were in the mall. Just being their greatly increases the chance of something being bought then them not being there, as common sense should dictate.

"Old People" consisting of those over 55.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf

Check the 4th page.

Partially the affect of the Baby Boom though.

I would say you just insulted many millions of people by grouping anyone over age 55 as "old". The "old people" bloc, I would assume, would be the retiree bloc. 55 year olds hardly vote in similar patterns as 70 year olds.

And it seems to me that you're looking to justify your previous statement that the elderly do not suffer ageism as great as poor widdle you.

Please continue until you're all ad-hominem-ed out and have excised your jingoistic, insulting, rude, and immature impulses. I'll respond when you're finished.

On the converse I knew girls that would spend at least $50 each time they were in the mall. Just being their greatly increases the chance of something being bought then them not being there, as common sense should dictate.
None of my friends ever spent that much, perhaps you lived in a welathy neighbourhood.


It still doesn't change the fact that if they really don't like it, they could just boycott the place, lose their hangout and make the businesses feel the loss of not having teenage customers everywhere. However, if they're not determined or don't care enough to do so then really, they have no right to complain about it.

Yet old people do not lose their licenses after being tested at a certain age, even though their motor skills, sensory acuity, and reaction times decrease drastically as they pass into their sixties and seventies. What does that say?

Our DMVs suck.

And even aside, that has nothing to do with this. Legitimate physiological concerns for developmental suitability to engage in an activity is completely separate from general, purposeless broad social discrimination against a a large age group.

Walking around a mall is in no way impeded by age if you're over 13 or so. The business(es) are just discriminating against people of the 13-17 age group because they attach a universal assumption of unruliness, untrustworthiness, or other distasteful traits to everyone in that group, just like white business owners did to blacks before such practices were illegalized.

What makes it any more right? Why should teenagers be held to a different standard than adults? If they break the rules, fine, kick 'em out. But assuming guilt before the fact and holding one group to a higher standard than the other is at base nothing better than discriminatory bullshit.

Chill, first my comment was supposed to be a rather lame play on words.
Second, I strongly agree that we should not assume the youth will cause a ruckus, as that most likely will cause much more harm than good as the youth have a very strange talent of living up to the world's expectations of them.
On the other hand, if they are being genuinely unruly/immature as the youth are more likely to be, it is a businessman's right to protect his business. i.e. playing classical music outside of 7-Elevens when there are solicitors (brilliant!)

Please continue until you're all ad-hominem-ed out and have excised your jingoistic, insulting, rude, and immature impulses. I'll respond when you're finished.

Alright. Jingoistic is an interesting analysis, but alright. I'm not trying to not be insulting or rude. You fully deserve it. You've yet to justify your comment that ageism is acceptable "unless you're a member of the powerful 'old people' voting bloc", when you are so clearly incorrect? That quote of yours clearly states that, in your estimation, ageism against old people is considered wrong, but ageism against youths is considered acceptable. Please, continue to buff up your posts to make yourself seem more intelligent, but your argument boils down to "poor teenagers are oppressed by adults".

I would say you just insulted many millions of people by grouping anyone over age 55 as "old". The "old people" bloc, I would assume, would be the retiree bloc. 55 year olds hardly vote in similar patterns as 70 year olds.

People over the age of 55 tend to quite politically similar to those 10 to 15 years older than them, being affected by similar conservatism (Although obviously not all of them) and the fact that they will never have to worry about being drafted for wars they have a large part in influencing the choice to enter (something many draftees do not have at all).

I hardly see it as being stereotypical or anything. At my local mall I notice that the vast majority of the time when you put 3 or more teenagers together they instantly become loud, unruly and obnoxious. Not that it really matters as recently the security guards often can't do shit. They used to be kicking those loud kids out but apparently some did complain and now they have to issue like 3 warnings before they can do that. Crazy.

Then when the mall brought this basketball game thing in it caused crowds and there was a fight once a week. Lasted a little over a month then closed because of the trouble it caused. This policy sounds quite sensible especially it the mall is having real problems of the kids harassing people.

None of my friends ever spent that much, perhaps you lived in a welathy neighbourhood.


It still doesn't change the fact that if they really don't like it, they could just boycott the place, lose their hangout and make the businesses feel the loss of not having teenage customers everywhere. However, if they're not determined or don't care enough to do so then really, they have no right to complain about it.
My town was very diverse when it came to wealth, and yes it was the more affluent who spent that much on each visit. I was merely commenting at first that it was odd that they would do it when teens do bring in money, even if they aren't buying thousands of dollars worth of merchandise, and if they do start getting kicked out randomly for their age then naturally they will find a new hang out spot.

The ironic thing about this is since they can't vote, and unlike women are incapable of politcal organization, the situation is very unlikely to change, which may not be a bad thing.

My town was very diverse when it came to wealth, and yes it was the more affluent who spent that much on each visit. I was merely commenting at first that it was odd that they would do it when teens do bring in money, even if they aren't buying thousands of dollars worth of merchandise, and if they do start getting kicked out randomly for their age then naturally they will find a new hang out spot.
Because a lot of teens do things like shoplift. I knew kids who would have competitions when it came to stealing from certain stores. They also do things like cause trouble, start fights, vandalize things et c. And often, this behavious stops when they can be prosecuted as adults.

The ironic thing about this is since they can't vote, and unlike women are incapable of politcal organization, the situation is very unlikely to change, which may not be a bad thing.
They could do it if they really wanted to. They could boycott the mall, they could picket it et c.

All this said, youths are very much discriminated against in our society. As are the elderly. And women, and minorities, and homosexuals. Pretty much anyone that isn't a white, middle-class, 18-49 year old straight Christian male.

Because a lot of teens do things like shoplift. I knew kids who would have competitions when it came to stealing from certain stores. They also do things like cause trouble, start fights, vandalize things et c. And often, this behavious stops when they can be prosecuted as adults.
So why don't they increase penalties on shop lifting, vandalizism and assaults. That'd do more to deter these behaviors then simply kicking them out so they will go do them elsewhere.

So why don't they increase penalties on shop lifting, vandalizism and assaults. That'd do more to deter these behaviors then simply kicking them out so they will go do them elsewhere.
Because for kids whose records are getting wiped clean in 5 years, it doesn't matter. Besides, kids won't necessarily all pick the same place to go hang out.

Because a lot of teens do things like shoplift. I knew kids who would have competitions when it came to stealing from certain stores. They also do things like cause trouble, start fights, vandalize things et c. And often, this behavious stops when they can be prosecuted as adults.

I would be willing to beleive that some people from every age group do this, and that the teen demographic has a larger percentage than any others, but I doubt it is a significantly large difference.

There are just more teens there.

Because for kids whose records are getting wiped clean in 5 years, it doesn't matter. Besides, kids won't necessarily all pick the same place to go hang out.

:rolleyes:

So explaining a monster ticket to parents or serving time in Juvenile Detention is no punishment at all, right?

They could still boycott it if they really deceided they didn't like the treatment they were getting.

By the way, as a former mall rat (though from the ages of 16-18) I can tell you that I usually stayed around until dinner time and then went home, occasionally finding something cheap to eat on the way out. I would spend less than $10 a week at the mall. Just because teenagers are everywhere in the mall doesn't mean they're buying anything.And if you were spending $10 a week or so at the mall and hanging out there most of the time, that's a few hundred dollars a year.

Multiply that by a transient population of a thousand teenagers who hang out at a mall (take that to be a few dozen teenagers scattered throughout) and you can see how even normally tight-fisted teenagers with next to no money generate revenues.

Now, age discrimination is quite legal, particularly in the case of teenagers, but that shouldn't really be the case.

Speaking as someone who didn't get his driver's license until he was an adult, there's no real reason why a 13 year old - who is tall enough to reach the pedals, has sufficient motor skills to manage, is familiar with the laws of traffic, etc etc - shouldn't be able to get a license if his or her parents so allow him or her, provide for training, pay for the insurance necessary to insure a 13 year old driver, etc etc. Of course, seeing as getting a driver's license is (or was) a joke in the country I come from (US), the age limit was the only way to keep kids who didn't know what they were doing off the road until they grew old enough to legally work.

The elderly do have recourse to legal action; the young do not. Middle aged authorities often transgress against the rights of youth, as a litany of court cases relating to high schools and middle schools demonstrate, and it is rare for anyone to fight back.

In this case, it's unlikely that anything will happen, unless the teenagers in the community take care to simply not shop at such malls. Curfews are the last refuge of those communities unwilling to address their difficulties with youth.

By the way, I'd say the voting age ought to be lowered a bit in most communities. Really, if you're old enough to be working and paying taxes, you ought to be voting.

Because for kids whose records are getting wiped clean in 5 years, it doesn't matter. Besides, kids won't necessarily all pick the same place to go hang out.
It isn't necessarily wiped clean. Which isn't well known but you do have to go to a court and request that your minor record get wiped. At least where I am from that is how its done. Still, if you shoplift and get a mandatory 100 horus community service, it would work as a deterence regardless if it will get wiped or not.

:rolleyes:

So explaining a monster ticket to parents or serving time in Juvenile Detention is no punishment at all, right?

Versus spending five years in federal prison?

Well if its a school night they should all be home in bed by 9 anyways

Versus spending five years in federal prison?

I didn't say the punishments were equal, just that it was stupid to act as though they weren't punished at all.

I would be willing to beleive that some people from every age group do this, and that the teen demographic has a larger percentage than any others, but I doubt it is a significantly large difference.

There are just more teens there.
Yep, I regularly see people of 40 having competitions with their buddies over who can lift from what store. I also see 30 year olds starting fights and 26 year olds putting graffiti every where.

Well if its a school night they should all be home in bed by 9 anywaysWhen I was in high school, I'd turn in about 2-3 am every night.

Had to get out of bed before 6 to make it to school. Didn't skip a single day until I was 17, and probably graduated with the best attendence record in my class.

Alright. Jingoistic is an interesting analysis, but alright. I'm not trying to not be insulting or rude. You fully deserve it. You've yet to justify your comment that ageism is acceptable "unless you're a member of the powerful 'old people' voting bloc", when you are so clearly incorrect? That quote of yours clearly states that, in your estimation, ageism against old people is considered wrong, but ageism against youths is considered acceptable. Please, continue to buff up your posts to make yourself seem more intelligent, but your argument boils down to "poor teenagers are oppressed by adults".

Let's look at this comparatively: does anyone care about youth issues? Is there any push to lower the drinking age to 18 to coincide with the age of military recruitment? What about abolish income tax on non-enfranchised, politically unrepresented minors? Do adults in the OP's community care about the mall's decision in a negative way, except when it becomes inconvenient for them if they have kids? A litany of negatives.

On the other hand, SocSec, Medicare, prescription drug benefits, buying prescription drugs across the Canadian border, and other senior-exclusive or senior-oriented issues receive plenty of attention, and from people below the age of retirement. I'm a debater at my high school, and we discuss elderly-specific issues all the time, and actually care about them. They're major political debates in Congress and in the media. Obviously, the elderly receive political attention.

By the same token, age-based discrimination against the elderly is getting more attention. People know what ageism is, at least, and they naturally associate it with the elderly. Suits have been brought against companies for ageism. Yet no one even recognizes youth discrimination as such.

Yes, old people have huge discrimination problems. I don't deny or denigrate that. But they do also have a listening ear in the sociopolitical arena. Are the two concerns of youth-oriented and elderly-oriented discrimination mutually exclusive to you? Or do you just not care about the former and extend this into a rule to judge everyone else's concerns and positions by?

Yep, I regularly see people of 40 having competitions with their buddies over who can lift from what store. I also see 30 year olds starting fights and 26 year olds putting graffiti every where.

And a large majority of teens don't do it either. There are just a shit ton more teens there than adults and the retards amongst us tend to find it easier to find others of their own kind. The 26 year olds I would beleive in a minute too. 30 somethings who are going to fight tend to find bars for their fights.

Although ageism is discrimination, there are certain things that ageiism is appropriate for. For instance, the military, driving a car, owning a house, owning a business, working for a company, etc.

However, I agree with you about the mall issue.

And yes, i realize ageism is unfair discrimination in some cases, but I think it takes a back seat to the other forms of discrimination out there.

Unlike discrimination against blacks, mexicans, women, etcetera, Ageism is something that you can grow out of. You can not grow out of being a woman (ok, you can get a sex change, but still), you can not grow out of being black, etc. However, you can grow up.

And if you were spending $10 a week or so at the mall and hanging out there most of the time, that's a few hundred dollars a year.
Most of the time I didn't spend anything. I usually went home before dinner or brought an extra sandwich so I wouldn't have to eat anything. Also, one of my friends had a job at a cookie stand and I'd get free cookies from her. The most I would spend in an afterschool visit is $10.

Multiply that by a transient population of a thousand teenagers who hang out at a mall (take that to be a few dozen teenagers scattered throughout) and you can see how even normally tight-fisted teenagers with next to no money generate revenues.
I would hardly say there were a few thousand teenagers at the mall I went to. 100, tops not counting those employed at the mall.

Speaking as someone who didn't get his driver's license until he was an adult, there's no real reason why a 13 year old - who is tall enough to reach the pedals, has sufficient motor skills to manage, is familiar with the laws of traffic, etc etc - shouldn't be able to get a license if his or her parents so allow him or her, provide for training, pay for the insurance necessary to insure a 13 year old driver, etc etc. Of course, seeing as getting a driver's license is (or was) a joke in the country I come from (US), the age limit was the only way to keep kids who didn't know what they were doing off the road until they grew old enough to legally work.
13 year olds are in no way mature enough to handle a responsability like driving.

In this case, it's unlikely that anything will happen, unless the teenagers in the community take care to simply not shop at such malls.
That's what I've been suggesting. Though I don't support the curfews either, that sort of thing should be up to the parents.

And a large majority of teens don't do it either. There are just a shit ton more teens there than adults and the retards amongst us tend to find it easier to find others of their own kind. The 26 year olds I would beleive in a minute too. 30 somethings who are going to fight tend to find bars for their fights.
Even 30 year olds don't pick fights in bars, it's usually the kids who just turned 19 and are just old enough to drink who start the most shit.

Even 30 year olds don't pick fights in bars, it's usually the kids who just turned 19 and are just old enough to drink who start the most shit.

:rolleyes:

Methinks someone is just biased.

Most of the time I didn't spend anything. I usually went home before dinner or brought an extra sandwich so I wouldn't have to eat anything. Also, one of my friends had a job at a cookie stand and I'd get free cookies from her. The most I would spend in an afterschool visit is $10.I thought we were talking ~$10 a week, not per day.

And although you usually didn't... do you really mean to say everybody doesn't?I would hardly say there were a few thousand teenagers at the mall I went to. 100, tops not counting those employed at the mall. Dakini... here's how it breaks down.

You have maybe a hundred teenagers at the mall at some particular point in the afternoon... but there are probably a couple thousand that pop in sometime during the week, most places.13 year olds are in no way mature enough to handle a responsability like driving.Some are, IMO. Some 18 year olds aren't. There's literally no legal question about the emotional or intellectual maturity of drivers that the government offers in testing them.

So long as there is an adult willing to be legally responsible for their actions (i.e., paying insurance and allowing them to drive their car), and they have the skills and knowledge necessary to drive (likely to be very rare at 13), what does it matter?

Yet old people do not lose their licenses after being tested at a certain age, even though their motor skills, sensory acuity, and reaction times decrease drastically as they pass into their sixties and seventies. What does that say?

And even aside, that has nothing to do with this. Legitimate physiological concerns for developmental suitability to engage in an activity is completely separate from general, purposeless broad social discrimination against a a large age group.

Walking around a mall is in no way impeded by age if you're over 13 or so. The business(es) are just discriminating against people of the 13-17 age group because they attach a universal assumption of unruliness, untrustworthiness, or other distasteful traits to everyone in that group, just like white business owners did to blacks before such practices were illegalized.

What makes it any more right? Why should teenagers be held to a different standard than adults? If they break the rules, fine, kick 'em out. But assuming guilt before the fact and holding one group to a higher standard than the other is at base nothing better than discriminatory bullshit.

It's not about the motor skills, it's about the level of maturity.

So long as there is an adult willing to be legally responsible for their actions (i.e., paying insurance and allowing them to drive their car), and they have the skills and knowledge necessary to drive (likely to be very rare at 13), what does it matter?

It matters because when a 13 year T-bones my car while street racing, I'll die.

Can I have my life back now? Or should I just ask for insurance?

I read a interesing article about how some malls are requiring people under the age of 17 at certain times have to leave the mall or be escorted by someone 21 or older in the mall.

This got me thinking. Although the mall is a privately owned bussiness, they can't say, "No blacks, whites only!" (racism) or say, "Men only, no women," (sexism). If sexism and racism or any other type of desrimination aren't acceptable (and I agree that they shouldn't be), then why would ageism be allowed? :confused:

Discuss.
Oh I kno why, especially nicer stores.
Those under 18 are not responsible for themselves, meaning if I break something in the store, they can't sue me, it's very hard to sue a minor.

If they try to sue my parents, they will say "I never gave her premision to be in that store, if you let her in, it's your fault".

Thus why the rules are the way they are.

:rolleyes:

Methinks someone is just biased.
Methinks someone has never seen a barfight that wasn't on tv.

Is this thread just going to be a bunch of teenagers complaining about how this is unfair, or are we actually going to discuss the impact of actual ageism in our society, such as the rampant discrimination against women who aren't young and nubile?

OMFG, this is priceless, you call teens bitching about being discriminated again whining, but if people discriminate against older women it's different.

um yeah.

It's not about the motor skills, it's about the level of maturity.

In driving? Not really. No matter how 'mature' you are, if you can't see the road well enough or react to a sudden stop ahead of you quick enough, you'll die and maybe take out other drivers with you.

OMFG, this is priceless, you call teens bitching about being discriminated again whining, but if people discriminate against older women it's different.

um yeah.

This is the same thing I said, but...differently....stated. Would you have been happier if I had said it this way, Sdaerji? Would confirming your prejudices or making it less difficult to dismiss me as an immature, unintelligent child have made you more amenable to polite, rational debate?

Some are, IMO. Some 18 year olds aren't. There's literally no legal question about the emotional or intellectual maturity of drivers that the government offers in testing them.
I have never, ever met a 13 year old who was mature enough to drive. I have met 13 year olds who thought they were mature enough, but that's another matter.

So long as there is an adult willing to be legally responsible for their actions (i.e., paying insurance and allowing them to drive their car), and they have the skills and knowledge necessary to drive (likely to be very rare at 13), what does it matter?
Oh yeah, and when they kill people hot dogging for their friends, it doesn't matter, right? Even you pointed out that there are some kids older than 13 who aren't mature enough to drive and they do stupid things behind the wheel... so you propose letting younger people, with a smaller % of mature members drive?

In driving? Not really. No matter how 'mature' you are, if you can't see the road well enough or react to a sudden stop ahead of you quick enough, you'll die and maybe take out other drivers with you.
And no matter how well you can see the road, if you're not mature enough to obey the rules of the road, you'll die and maybe take out other drivers with you.

I read a interesing article about how some malls are requiring people under the age of 17 at certain times have to leave the mall or be escorted by someone 21 or older in the mall.

This got me thinking. Although the mall is a privately owned bussiness, they can't say, "No blacks, whites only!" (racism) or say, "Men only, no women," (sexism). If sexism and racism or any other type of desrimination aren't acceptable (and I agree that they shouldn't be), then why would ageism be allowed? :confused:

Discuss.

1) those under 18 are not adults and as such not entilted full civil rights. Protection, yes. Total freedom, no.

2) If you are black, you will always be black. If you are a woman, you will always (baring expensive and painful surgery) be a woman. If you are gay, you will always be gay. If you are elderly, you will always be eldery. But you will only be a teenage for a very, very short time. You will become an adult sooner than you think. Thus it is only a temporary situation and not true discrimination.

3) Many malls are only requiring you to bring your parent(s) with you. What's so bad about that? Unless ,of course, the whole point is to get away from your parents so that you can do things you know are wrong.

Malls are doing this to lure back people like me who no longer shop there because of all the teens. I don't particularly enjoy it when teens (and it has only ever been teens to do this to me) scream "fag!" at me. I don't enjoy having to listen to their loud and gratuitious swearing. Nor do I enjoy their "macho" posturing and sometimes threatening behavior. So I chose to quit shopping there all together. There a a lot of us who have done that. We used to spend real money at the mall ($100s/$1000s in one visit). This has cost the malls a good deal of money, thus they are now trying to lure us back.

If you don't like that you are being "discriminated against, just wait a year or two. It'll cease to be a problem. Not to sound patronizing, but you'll understand all this when you're a little older. I hated it when I was your age too. But now I see why it is necessary.

And no matter how well you can see the road, if you're not mature enough to obey the rules of the road, you'll die and maybe take out other drivers with you.

So, one must have both. Agreed?

In driving? Not really. No matter how 'mature' you are, if you can't see the road well enough or react to a sudden stop ahead of you quick enough, you'll die and maybe take out other drivers with you.

What about street racing? Why don't we give a free gun to every criminal who has the finger strength to pull a trigger too?

Then again, a bit of (careful) hooliganism never hurt anyone.

Wrong. It hurts sales when said hooliganism chases away the adults with real money to spend. And as the ratio of teens to adults skews infavor of teens, more and more adults quit shopping there.

i dont agree with un written rules ( and some written ones) on who you can or can not ban. who you ban/ dont ban just reflects your business.

i would understand why a nursery school would probably not want a 40 year old single man who has been suspected of child porn and has no ties to any of the children hanging around their nursery school. and i find that acceptable

i dont however understand why a movie theater would ban a older black couple that have lived their entire lifes by the law. this is unacceptable and i would most likely have a very bad opinion on this theater and im sure many others would also.

i dont agree with un written rules ( and some written ones) on who you can or can not ban. who you ban/ dont ban just reflects your business.

i would understand why a nursery school would probably not want a 40 year old single man who has been suspected of child porn and has no ties to any of the children hanging around their nursery school. and i find that acceptable

i dont however understand why a movie theater would ban a older black couple that have lived their entire lifes by the law. this is unacceptable and i would most likely have a very bad opinion on this theater and im sure many others would also.

I wish movie theatres would ban junior high students. I find they're the worst.

Wrong. It hurts sales when said hooliganism chases away the adults with real money to spend. And as the ratio of teens to adults skews infavor of teens, more and more adults quit shopping there.

I think we've already gone over the fact that the teenage demographic spends a great deal more money at most malls than do adults (with the exception of really upclass places).

I think we've already gone over the fact that the teenage demographic spends a great deal more money at most malls than do adults (with the exception of really upclass places).
No, they really don't.

My mom isn't upperclass and she will spend more at the mall than I did as a teen or most teens do when she goes. Spending a lot of time there isn't the same as spending a lot of money there. Most teens don't have a lot of money to spend.

I have never, ever met a 13 year old who was mature enough to drive. I have met 13 year olds who thought they were mature enough, but that's another matter.I believe I have. Several times.

From my perspective, there's not too much difference between the 13 year olds who have suddenly become physically capable of driving and the 16 year olds who can drive.

In agricultural families, it's not unusual for 13 year olds to learn how to drive a tractor, and in some communities, it's not quite as unusual for 13 year olds to drive as you might think.Oh yeah, and when they kill people hot dogging for their friends, it doesn't matter, right? Even you pointed out that there are some kids older than 13 who aren't mature enough to drive and they do stupid things behind the wheel... so you propose letting younger people, with a smaller % of mature members drive?Why not? Where's the real quantifiable standard?

Believe me, with rigorous testing standards, not many 13 year olds will be driving anyway, but why should the age really matter?

Believe me, with rigorous testing standards, not many 13 year olds will be driving anyway, but why should the age really matter?
So now you propose maturity testing for the ability to drive?

No, they really don't.

My mom isn't upperclass and she will spend more at the mall than I did as a teen or most teens do when she goes. Spending a lot of time there isn't the same as spending a lot of money there. Most teens don't have a lot of money to spend.Eh, I've heard figures that vary wildly. A hundred billion and odd change (http://www.merchandisegroup.com/merchandise/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001772548) isn't too bad a market segment,

I think we've already gone over the fact that the teenage demographic spends a great deal more money at most malls than do adults (with the exception of really upclass places).

That is merely your opinion, not a fact.

http://www.malladvertising.com/www/docs/5

* The average expenditure per mall visit is $69.50
* Nearly 80% of mall visitors make at least one purchase
* 64% of mall shoppers are female
* 75% of mall sales are made by shoppers between the ages of 20-54
* Teens visit the mall an average of 5 times per month and spend nearly $41 per visit

So now you propose maturity testing for the ability to drive?If you feel that maturity is critical, you should test all prospective drivers for it.

Myself, I suggest legal responsibility being present on the part of someone legally accountable is enough for the law.

If you feel that maturity is critical, you should test all prospective drivers for it.

Myself, I suggest legal responsibility being present on the part of someone legally accountable is enough for the law.
Well, if it's just based on the ability to reach the peddles, to girls get to drive before boys?

Well, if it's just based on the ability to reach the peddles, to girls get to drive before boys?Well, don't they also get to ride the "You must be THIS tall" rides first?

If they can manage to pass muster with the DMV in road tests, written tests, etc... sure.

I read a interesing article about how some malls are requiring people under the age of 17 at certain times have to leave the mall or be escorted by someone 21 or older in the mall.

This got me thinking. Although the mall is a privately owned bussiness, they can't say, "No blacks, whites only!" (racism) or say, "Men only, no women," (sexism). If sexism and racism or any other type of desrimination aren't acceptable (and I agree that they shouldn't be), then why would ageism be allowed? :confused:

Discuss.

I think the whole thing is just a ploy by some malls to try and make more money.

Since the teens will now have to have supervision, there will be more people with more disposable income in the mall at any given time.

After all, what mall wants only teenagers spending money when they could have teenagers AND their parents doing so?

I wish movie theatres would ban junior high students. I find they're the worst.

comming from someone that used to work at a theater awhile back

yes they should be banned, they do make your job quite a bit more annoying