Joy-Anna Duggar Courting at 19- WDYT?

[gardenmom5]

I remember the first time the mini golf incident was brought up on a Duggar thread and I looked it up to see if it was as bad as it sounded. It was so awkward and weird I wanted brain bleach after seeing it. JB is seriously creepy. And that 50 page application? I really shouldn't be surprised.

 

My own father, after a disastrous divorce with my mother, years of lying, drinking, and more... told me he thinks parents should pick their children's spouses, that parents would do a better job. There are moments in life that render you speechless... :)

 

sometimes parents  probably would have done better **. . . . and sometimes the parents need to just shut up.

 

 

** I know people who chose their own spouse - and those closest saw the train wreck before the wedding.   no one was surprised about the divorce. except the bride.

 

I completely ignored my mother. . . . she later admitted I picked a good husband.

[HS Mom in NC]

On the military at 17--

 

I would have managed to stay out of trouble for a year, but there was no reason to waste the time, either.

 

Allowing a child another year to mature before making a serious commitment that includes being but in harm's way in some of the most extreme circumstances or providing some sort of direct support to the those who do isn't a waste of time. 

 

 

  It wasn't "critical" that I join at 17, but for some people it is a really good job option right out of high school. There's no real reason to wait. 

 

Except to mature more. 

Except to see if their minds don't change about such a commitment-17 year olds are notorious for changing interests in a few months.  That's not bad a thing.  It's part of exploring options and taking a longer time to make irrevocable decisions.

 

I could stay and work at Taco Bell for six months, or I could go and be challenged and do what people do after high school - start a new part of their life. 

 

I never suggested it HAD to be either or.  The military could develop something akin to internships where interested minors could be trained to do some of the less threatening tedious tasks related to serving current or former military personnel like volunteering at the VA (my 17 year old volunteered at a hospital and did copying, laminating, filing and errands for the office staff) ride alongs that are open to the public for emergency services  to get a sense of working in more extreme conditions,  providing meal on wheels to elderly former military servicemembers to develop a connection and gain advice from them, and things like that.  Fitness programs could be developed for minors who want to prepare for service early and other kinds of things like that so minors could explore the idea of military service and develop relationships with people who have been there, done that BEFORE they go making a commitment that can't be undone for 4 years.  Lectures about military history and service could be made available to interested minors by retirees who want to connect with newbies. Internships have been developed for just about every other field out there and with all the smart people in the military, I'm sure they could develop some really great ones.  Yes, they'd probably lose some people who would get a better sense that it isn't for them, but they're also likely to persuade some who are on the fence into committing at 18.  Win. Win.

 

 

Recruiters and boot camp do a surprisingly adequate (though not perfect) job of weeding out the immature and unfit for service. Interestingly, as long as you are in training (and even to some extent after training for your whole career), the military very much acts like your "parent".  The training time period varies, but we're talking curfews, where you're allowed to go, what you can wear, etc, and that is no matter how old you are. 

 

Following orders about bedtime and clothing aren't what concerns people like me.  It's having 17 year olds making some one of the most earth shattering life decisions that could potentially include serious physical and commonly recognized mental harm.  It's the rare 17 year old that has adult maturity and long term, measured analytical abilities.  Giving them a year to grow up and let their brains develop more isn't going to hurt anyone.  Allowing them to commit before getting in another year to mature does have some potential harm.

 

The people I knew who had the toughest time adjusting to military life were people who were older and had lived a few years in college or independently and were suddenly thrust into a life where they were not allowed to go off base and had to have their room inspected by someone who had six more months in service than they did, and may have been younger.  Kind of funny.  But, if I had gone away to college, I would have been away from home with much less accountability and supervision than I had joining the military at 17.

 

Again you've missed the central point.  It's NOT about accountability and supervision.  It's about committing every ounce of yourself to one of the most seriously consequential life choices with no ability to change your mind after you sign up.  People figure out that college isn't for them (I believe it's about 40%) before their 4 years is up and then simply move on to something else.  That's not an option in the military, so waiting until they reach legal adulthood buys them more time to consider and mature before signing up.

 

And to say, "well if they can't keep out of trouble for six months they aren't fit to serve" -- I think that's extremely naive.  Some of the finest people I served with came from places where staying out of trouble was not an option had they not left their hometowns immediately after graduation.  The reason they got out as soon as they could was to get away from toxic home lives and neighborhoods.

 

Well, then by that logic, whey don't we allow them to sign up at 16? 15? 14?  The military isn't here to provide a way of escape from a toxic family situation.  It's a place where people commit every ounce of themselves to being warriors in battle or to support warriors in battle.  Yes, we do need to figure out solutions so everyone, not just someone who meets military enlistment standards, has more options, but that shouldn't be military service. 

 

What you're describing is actually a form of coercion.  It's a situation where someone will sign a contract under circumstances when if those circumstances were normal, calm and peaceful, they wouldn't sign them.  I'm very pro-military but about the only point I agree on with anti-military types is that the military sometimes takes advantage of people in the worst situations.   That's the same general problem people have with the Gothardite cult courtship practices and pressuring pregnant minors to marry.  It's isn't really volunteering or choosing when there are few or no other realistic options.  That's bad.

 

 

17 year olds may be minors, and they may not be able to drink legally (which is silly, IMO), but they are not children.

 

17 year olds aren't children but they aren't legal adults either. Military service is an activity that should be only for legal adults, just like marriage, buying tobacco products, consenting to or declining medical treatment, signing legal contracts of all sorts, buying a gun, and the like.

 

But, no, the military isn't, or hasn't been as of late, so hard up that they are relying on 17 year olds to fill out their ranks.  It just happens that some of us have fall birthdays and graduate high school a bit earlier than others.  The idea that we aren't capable of making mature decisions is silly.

 

The idea that most 17 year olds can make serious life decisions is very silly.  Most of us have been 17 and were around 17 year olds, and no, that's not the time of life people look back on and say, "You know who makes great life decisions?  17 year olds."  That's because real maturity at 17 is the exception, not the norm.  If it were the norm we'd let them do all those other things I listed as adult behaviors. Mid to late teens can make big leaps and maintain long plateaus in maturity, which is why, in general, we don't consider most of them to be mature enough to make major life decisions.  Brain research supports that point of view.  Another year is plenty to gain and nothing to lose for 17 year olds who want to serve in the military.

 

 

 

[EmseB]

Ok, waived. Whatever, it's the same thing. A 17.5 year old in that situation signed a contract, and it seems kind of crazy to me that he or she would be allowed to do that. Joining the military, as Faith pointed out above, is kind of a big deal, a potentially life ending decision. And we're ok with minors making that decision? Yes, I think waiting six months to be really sure is necessary for someone considering such a huge decision.

 

Yes, I agree that a 17 year old shouldn't be allowed to borrow tons of money, though I suppose his parents could and use that to pay for his college. That's the decision of the parents. The adults.

 

Yes, six months is simply an inconvenience. Figuring out where to live, where to work, what to do in a transitional period in your life... these are things people deal with all the time. Even when you sign up for the military, there's frequently a gap in time (for my brother it was eight months where he was just waiting to go to boot camp).

 

ETA: I am vaguely aware of the requirements of signing up and your point about making it through training by 18 isn't completely invalid but neither is it completely valid. The training my brother is receiving is so specialized that he's been at it for two years and isn't done. He hasn't seen combat and never will. Technically, he could have signed up at 15-16 and been done with training by 18.... though that would have required granting a security clearance to a minor that I'm sure they never do... :)

 

Waived is not the same thing as being thrown out.  A waiver has certain requirements, which I listed.  The waiver is part of the law as to who is eligible to join the U.S. military. If the law were thrown out, there would be no need for a waiver.

 

I don't understand the part about waiting 6 months to be really sure?  Are you suggesting a 6 month waiting period for everyone to make sure they are really sure?  I mean, it wasn't like I turned 17.5 and the next day I decided to jump on a plane for boot camp.  I don't know anyone who did. I talked to the recruiter multiple times, took the ASVAB, and sat on my decision for months before I signed anything.  And then, as you mention, there was the wait to actually leave for basic training.  And even after all of that waiting, some people still don't make it through boot camp because military life is not for them. I know people who do join quickly, but I don't assume they are unable to know their own minds about things, even at 17. 

 

But you do realize you're arguing with someone who navigated this whole process while I was seventeen that 17 year olds are not able to make these decisions?  Joining the military was probably one of the best decisions I ever made, even though it was not all unicorns and bunnies, and I did get deployed, despite having a job on paper that said I'd never see a sandbox.  It was hard, and I felt stuck sometimes, and there were things that weren't great.  But it was still one of the best decisions I ever made, and part of that was because I was so young when I did it. So obviously I don't think it is across the board silly for a 17 yo to be allowed to sign on the dotted line.

 

But, yes, I'm okay with the current set up of allowing 17.5 year olds to join with parental permission (you know, the adults you mention in the very next part of your post who co-sign huge student loans for their kiddos) and if they are able to hack it through boot camp and training.  I think adolescents in the US and the West are, relative to the rest of the world, way behind in just general expectations, and it's only getting worse as many people now have an extended childhood through college into their early 20s. Given my experience, there are plenty of 17yos (including myself, who did!) who can handle a 4 year commitment.  The thing is, there are people who can't handle the military and don't make it through boot camp.  It's not a character flaw, it's just not for them.

 

I'll be honest and say I didn't think of the possibility of someone like your brother who graduated high school at 15...that's amazing!  But, yeah, 15 is even too young for me to feel comfortable with someone making that decision because some late bloomers are barely just into puberty.

 

But, sometimes six months is not simply an inconvenience. We can just agree to disagree there.  We are both probably very fortunate in that leaving home immediately after high school is not a decision we had to make.

[EmseB]

 

The idea that most 17 year olds can make serious life decisions is very silly.  Most of us have been 17 and were around 17 year olds, and no, that's not the time of life people look back on and say, "You know who makes great life decisions?  17 year olds."  That's because real maturity at 17 is the exception, not the norm.  If it were the norm we'd let them do all those other things I listed as adult behaviors. Mid to late teens can make big leaps and maintain long plateaus in maturity, which is why, in general, we don't consider most of them to be mature enough to make major life decisions.  Brain research supports that point of view.  Another year is plenty to gain and nothing to lose for 17 year olds who want to serve in the military.

 

LOL, read what I just posted to Mimm. You're arguing with a person who made the decision to join at 17, and it was probably one of the best decisions I ever made, and I'm glad I did it then and didn't wait. Yes, I have been 17.  I decided to enlist in the military. It wasn't impulsive or silly.  It gave me a great life start at a very young age.  You're not going to convince me that 17 year olds are incapable of deciding that. I'm not saying every 17 year old is, which is why there's a parental signature required to join.  The decision is still ultimately up to the legal guardian.  But I'm so glad my mother didn't tell me how very silly I was for trying to make big decisions when we discussed this. How demoralizing!

 

I was raised with the expectation that I would have some sort of plan coming out of high school. My parents did not make that plan for me, although I knew what they preferred. Unfortunately I couldn't afford what they preferred and neither could they. And I was mature enough at that age to know I needed discipline and that my work ethic was not very good.  I wanted to do something about that. I decided the military was the best option for me. Four years is not a lifetime, although I was well aware that I was giving up my life for those years.  If your kid is not self-aware enough at 17 to know that, then by all means, do not sign the paper for them. That's what it comes down to.  You all who feel your kids would not be able to make that decision, then don't let them. That's why that paper is required. Because some parents don't think their kids should be making big decisions after high school.  I don't know that all of my kids will be able to make that decision at that age because I don't know how mature they will be, so I'm not even saying every 17 year old is capable.  But I served with some who were, and I'd like to think I was since I went on to serve for the better part of a decade.

 

But good night, brain research?  17yos have been joining the military and making much tougher decisions than I ever did, or that most any kid in America will have to make, for most of human history. I think a little perspective on this would be good, especially since most jobs in the military have nothing to do with combat and are not much more than sitting at a computer in a climate controlled office for most of one's career.

[Melissa in Australia]

I think this whole conversation is weird

[EmseB]

nm...I think I was just repeating myself. Insomnia!

Edited November 22, 2016 by JodiSue

[Mimm]

Waived is not the same thing as being thrown out.  A waiver has certain requirements, which I listed.  The waiver is part of the law as to who is eligible to join the U.S. military. If the law were thrown out, there would be no need for a waiver.

 

I don't understand the part about waiting 6 months to be really sure?  Are you suggesting a 6 month waiting period for everyone to make sure they are really sure?  I mean, it wasn't like I turned 17.5 and the next day I decided to jump on a plane for boot camp.  I don't know anyone who did. I talked to the recruiter multiple times, took the ASVAB, and sat on my decision for months before I signed anything.  And then, as you mention, there was the wait to actually leave for basic training.  And even after all of that waiting, some people still don't make it through boot camp because military life is not for them. I know people who do join quickly, but I don't assume they are unable to know their own minds about things, even at 17. 

 

But you do realize you're arguing with someone who navigated this whole process while I was seventeen that 17 year olds are not able to make these decisions?  Joining the military was probably one of the best decisions I ever made, even though it was not all unicorns and bunnies, and I did get deployed, despite having a job on paper that said I'd never see a sandbox.  It was hard, and I felt stuck sometimes, and there were things that weren't great.  But it was still one of the best decisions I ever made, and part of that was because I was so young when I did it. So obviously I don't think it is across the board silly for a 17 yo to be allowed to sign on the dotted line.

 

But, yes, I'm okay with the current set up of allowing 17.5 year olds to join with parental permission (you know, the adults you mention in the very next part of your post who co-sign huge student loans for their kiddos) and if they are able to hack it through boot camp and training.  I think adolescents in the US and the West are, relative to the rest of the world, way behind in just general expectations, and it's only getting worse as many people now have an extended childhood through college into their early 20s. Given my experience, there are plenty of 17yos (including myself, who did!) who can handle a 4 year commitment.  The thing is, there are people who can't handle the military and don't make it through boot camp.  It's not a character flaw, it's just not for them.

 

I'll be honest and say I didn't think of the possibility of someone like your brother who graduated high school at 15...that's amazing!  But, yeah, 15 is even too young for me to feel comfortable with someone making that decision because some late bloomers are barely just into puberty.

 

But, sometimes six months is not simply an inconvenience. We can just agree to disagree there.  We are both probably very fortunate in that leaving home immediately after high school is not a decision we had to make.

 

I agree that we'll never see eye to eye. "It worked out well for me" isn't a good argument in and of itself. I'm glad it worked out for you. You keep acting like this six month delay will be dire without actually saying why. If it's not simply an inconvenience, what is it exactly? What is uniquely horrible about about the six months between 17.5 and 18? The fact that 17 year olds can't rent an apartment or do a lot of other adult things? Doesn't that seem kind of crazy, that we'd prevent a 17 year old from doing all these things, but they can sign away their lives to the military? Doesn't that leave some 17 year olds in a situation where joining the military is kind of their only option? Doesn't that seem like a serious problem?

 

I never said parents should be able to cosign loans for 17 year olds. I said they should be able to sign for their own loans if they want to, and pay for their child's education out of that, with no legal guarantee that the 17 year old will be the one paying them back.

 

I also mean to imply that my brother graduated at 15. I meant that his training was so long that IF he had, he could have signed up that early, and still been 18 when he finished it.

 

If you think that childhood is extended, fine, that's one thing. Lowering the age of majority is an idea I could understand. But allowing minors to enter into life changing, possibly life ending, contract simply isn't. I didn't think such a statement would be controversial. :)

[maize]

I agree that we'll never see eye to eye. "It worked out well for me" isn't a good argument in and of itself. I'm glad it worked out for you. You keep acting like this six month delay will be dire without actually saying why. If it's not simply an inconvenience, what is it exactly? What is uniquely horrible about about the six months between 17.5 and 18? The fact that 17 year olds can't rent an apartment or do a lot of other adult things? Doesn't that seem kind of crazy, that we'd prevent a 17 year old from doing all these things, but they can sign away their lives to the military? Doesn't that leave some 17 year olds in a situation where joining the military is kind of their only option? Doesn't that seem like a serious problem?

 

I never said parents should be able to cosign loans for 17 year olds. I said they should be able to sign for their own loans if they want to, and pay for their child's education out of that, with no legal guarantee that the 17 year old will be the one paying them back.

 

I also mean to imply that my brother graduated at 15. I meant that his training was so long that IF he had, he could have signed up that early, and still been 18 when he finished it.

 

If you think that childhood is extended, fine, that's one thing. Lowering the age of majority is an idea I could understand. But allowing minors to enter into life changing, possibly life ending, contract simply isn't. I didn't think such a statement would be controversial. :)

Minors can do a lot of life-altering things.

 

Giving birth to a new life for which we then expect them to be responsible probably being the most glaring example. A legal contract pales in significance by comparison to becoming a parent.

[lanalouwho]

I just have to chime in here. I also joined the military at 17, and it saved me. I had graduated high school and started community college. I was having some very serious family issues, as well as some personal/academic issues. I was heading down a bad path, and desperately needed direction, discipline, and a positive goal. The military gave me that. Joining the military was the best decision I ever made. I might even go as far as to say that it saved my life. There is no way to know where I would've ended up if I had to stay in that bad situation for even 6 months longer.

It's true that there were few other options available to me at that point, and maybe I would have chosen differently if there had been. But I do not regret for one second that I joined at 17, and I am extremely grateful that the option existed.

 

Sent from my HTCD160LVW using Tapatalk

[Murphy101]

I do think consistently having one age for adulthood things would be helpful.

 

I would be okay with that age being as low as 15 or as high as 22/25.

 

It wouldn't change anything I do wrt raising my kids or how we advise them on adult decisions.

 

I have no issue with teen marriages aside from the same concerns I'd have for the couple at any age. Most of the major difficulty a young couple face are artificially contrived by society, not necessarily a problem of immature lack of willingness. Such as education and employment obstacles.

[Murphy101]

And I do think having the ability to go to court for emancipation is important both for minors and for their parents. It is not always the kid who seeks it and there are many solid reasons for it in some circumstances.

[HS Mom in NC]

LOL, read what I just posted to Mimm. You're arguing with a person who made the decision to join at 17, and it was probably one of the best decisions I ever made, and I'm glad I did it then and didn't wait. Yes, I have been 17.  I decided to enlist in the military. It wasn't impulsive or silly.  It gave me a great life start at a very young age.  You're not going to convince me that 17 year olds are incapable of deciding that. I'm not saying every 17 year old is, which is why there's a parental signature required to join.  The decision is still ultimately up to the legal guardian.  But I'm so glad my mother didn't tell me how very silly I was for trying to make big decisions when we discussed this. How demoralizing!

 

I was raised with the expectation that I would have some sort of plan coming out of high school. My parents did not make that plan for me, although I knew what they preferred. Unfortunately I couldn't afford what they preferred and neither could they. And I was mature enough at that age to know I needed discipline and that my work ethic was not very good.  I wanted to do something about that. I decided the military was the best option for me. Four years is not a lifetime, although I was well aware that I was giving up my life for those years.  If your kid is not self-aware enough at 17 to know that, then by all means, do not sign the paper for them. That's what it comes down to.  You all who feel your kids would not be able to make that decision, then don't let them. That's why that paper is required. Because some parents don't think their kids should be making big decisions after high school.  I don't know that all of my kids will be able to make that decision at that age because I don't know how mature they will be, so I'm not even saying every 17 year old is capable.  But I served with some who were, and I'd like to think I was since I went on to serve for the better part of a decade.

 

But good night, brain research?  17yos have been joining the military and making much tougher decisions than I ever did, or that most any kid in America will have to make, for most of human history. I think a little perspective on this would be good, especially since most jobs in the military have nothing to do with combat and are not much more than sitting at a computer in a climate controlled office for most of one's career.

 

Again you seem to lose the central point and not process previous discussion.  Setting an age for adulthood and consistently applying it to all serious behaviors is about what's true for the GENERAL population.  We're talking about US law that applies to hundreds of millions of people.  Making laws based on the few exceptions of teens who might be mature enough is not how legislation should work.  You did notice that, right?  Everyone else is speaking about general principles and you keep speaking about your own personal, individual, exceptional scenario.

 

My dad says at 17 he signed up for  the branch of the military he did because of the 3 branches sharing the office (in a tiny, rural town) the navy guy had is feet on the desk and was drinking a cup of coffee. That's much more in line with the typical thinking of 17 year olds.  He had an entirely different view of things when he was jamming Russian radar during the Cuban missile crisis down in Cuba.  He remembered the "most people don't see combat" speech he had been told at the recruiter's office.

 

Saying if you feel your kids aren't ready, don't sign is a complete disregard for the theme of this thread.  So the cult dragging the 15 year olds to Kansas to marry completely believe their kids are ready.  Our laws need to protect childhood and minors in general, in a consistent, coherent way from that kind of thing. We can't make one law for reasonable parents with exceptional children and one law for flaky parents who want their kids off their hands for convenience sake or because of their religious views on sex.  This thread is all about keeping parents from making big decisions for kids and reserving the decision making for the kids themselves when they become legal adults, regardless of whether or not it currently works out for some minors making those decisions. 

[HS Mom in NC]

Minors can do a lot of life-altering things.

 

Giving birth to a new life for which we then expect them to be responsible probably being the most glaring example. A legal contract pales in significance by comparison to becoming a parent.

 

Yes, it's huge and it's statistically consistent that the children of teen moms are at most risk for all sorts of problems long term, reinforcing the idea that parenthood should be an adult activity.  There's no way to deal with that legislatively, but that doesn't mean we can't make some efforts to deal with other things that can. 

[JumpyTheFrog]

It sounds like there might be a need for a national service organization that runs with the discipline of the military but without the risk of having body parts blown off. Then there would be some place for some of these high school graduates to go that wouldn't leave them with PTSD. In my opinion, 17 is too young to sign a contract promising to fight in wars a soldier might not agree with (or find to be an unjust war).

[JumpyTheFrog]

All the different age ranges are crazy. I agree that we should pick and age and stick with it. Then we should all encourage our kids to postpone sex until that age (even if they aren't on board with waiting until marriage).

[Scarlett]

I just have to chime in here. I also joined the military at 17, and it saved me. I had graduated high school and started community college. I was having some very serious family issues, as well as some personal/academic issues. I was heading down a bad path, and desperately needed direction, discipline, and a positive goal. The military gave me that. Joining the military was the best decision I ever made. I might even go as far as to say that it saved my life. There is no way to know where I would've ended up if I had to stay in that bad situation for even 6 months longer.

It's true that there were few other options available to me at that point, and maybe I would have chosen differently if there had been. But I do not regret for one second that I joined at 17, and I am extremely grateful that the option existed.

 

Sent from my HTCD160LVW using Tapatalk

It's funny, when I read your post I could hear my mom saying all the same things about having me out of wedlock in 1965. My bio father refused to acknowledge me, she was afraid to tell her parents....but she still says I saved her. Gave her a sense of purpose and direction ( keep this baby alive) ..........being saved in that manner is not a great argument to me for such serious life decisions.

[fraidycat]

I guess I'm not understanding your point as it pertains to the conversation, then.

 

In my experience in the military, the people who were slackers or not making good decisions spanned all age groups and backgrounds. I thought you were trying to make the point that those people were directly related to the idea of 17-year-olds signing contracts. I mean, I thought that was the point of this line of the conversation.

 

Tangentially, I'm sorry you've had such a negative experience with who you served with. My experience was that the most egregious cases of people who were not fit for service were weeded out early in their career. Of course there were people who fell through the cracks for whatever reason and ended up relegated to cleaning latrines because we didn't want them anywhere near expensive breakable stuff. Sometimes it got bad enough that CO's had to make tough decisions and kick people out. I don't know how you avoid that in any type of working environment, honestly. I worked in a job where we had maybe one out of our group of 15 at any given time who really couldn't do an adequate, safe job. It sounds like you've experienced a somewhat higher percentage of doofuses and slackers.

 

On the other hand, I had an overall positive experience with the vast, vast majority of people I served with, enough to say that I think the process of getting the bad people out - for the most part - works as it should. I think the culture was changing as I left because more "everyone gets a trophy, no one fails out" people were getting up in ranks, and that does not translate well to the military working environment. Maybe that's what's going on now, or what you dealt with when you were (are?) in. I don't know what you consider a "large number of people" and I don't know what you mean by "a great number of those" either. In my line of work, we had so many certifications, and zero tolerances for things like stupid mistakes or missed details that people did not last very long if they were not at least competent. Those that weren't able to hack it did get put into other useful and necessary jobs, though.

.

 

To sum it up:

 

You said 17 year olds make mature decisions.

 

I said many 17+ do NOT make mature decisions. Even with "military discipline" in place.

[gardenmom5]

.

 

To sum it up:

 

You said 17 year olds make mature decisions.

 

I said many 17+ do NOT make mature decisions. Even with "military discipline" in place.

 

kids  vary maturity wise.  I know kids who'd I'd trust implicitly to be responsible at 16.  and people I would NOT trust to be responsible at 30.  (or even 60.)

 

however, there needs to be a flat age legally, because you can't say "when they're mature . . . . " there is no one size fits all, but somethings simply need the structure of a cut-off age.

 

My brother went into the military when he was 19.  for him, he seriously needed the structure and he was able to straighten out his life. 

[maize]

So...if the age of legal maturity were to be determined by brain maturation, shouldn't it be earlier for females than for males? Otherwise we're stuck with either making the more mature females wait around for legal adult status because their male contemporaries' brains haven't caught up yet, or making the males take on adult responsibility before they're ready just because the females already have functioning adult brains.

 

Actually something I have thought of quite frequently, especially with regards to driving ages. Lots of science indicating that female brains mature on average at least two years before male brains. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by maize

[swellmomma]

Different country and therefore different laws, but as far as military goes it sounds somewhat similar.  Out here a teen can join the reserves at age 17 if they can prove they have at least a 10th grade education.  They can join reg force at 18, though I believe they can at 17 if they have already graduated high school.  My daughter graduates this June at 17, she will turn 18 at the end of July and plans to enlist at that time, it's only a month.  She would have already been in the reserves but the closest reserve base is 2 hours away and she doesn't drive yet.  So that put a wrench in her plan.  Just as well, she has filled her time table this year.  If her birthday was further away than it is from her graduation time I would likely sign whatever they needed me to to let her enlist.  If that is what she has planned for her future I am not going to prevent it, just like I wouldn't hold her back from going to college at 17 if she had graduated and was ready. That said she has known for years this is what she wants.  She spent 4 years in Army cadets, and it solidified her desire to enlist.  Even though she has left cadets now (due to the people in it, not the activity itself), she knows this is what she wants to do with her life after graduation, even if she is still 17 when she graduates.

[FaithManor]

I think that is the point. We all know people mature on a continuum. However, legally, there needs to be some consistency. This is true too from the standpoint of responsibility of the parent. Locally some underage drinkers vandalized a property, and the parents were sued. Hey, wait a minute! How does that work. These were post-18 year olds. Supposedly adults. Just because the drinking age is 21, that shouldn't mean their parents should be held responsible. Unless one is going to make the legal age of majority 21. But these "adults" stole mom and dad's credit cards to go purchase their liquor illegally, and this was some how construed in the law as providing alcohol to minors.

 

Likely the case will be tossed to the curb. Hopefully it will. It is wrong. Either they are minors or they are adults. For legal purposes, there shouldn't be a blending.

 

That said, back to the original topic. Since child marriage is an issue, and it is far easier to manipulate a minor without legal rights into marrying someone based on mom and dad's twisted agenda or religious preferences, making it 100% illegal before the age of 18 would at least make it easier to prosecute in child bride cases where there was lack of consent. It truly does not hurt them to wait until they are 18.

 

If there is a problem due to 4 year olds going to school so graduating at 17 and needing to start out on adult life, then make it 17. Or, and I think this is the better option, go back to 5 years of age as the minimum for enrollment in kindergarten regardless of birthdays being close to the start of school. So many four year olds aren't ready, and many of our kindergartens are all day now, so it would be in the best interests of children to wait to five as a general policy. That means they start college as 18 year olds or super, duper close to 18 if the university begins the year before most primary schools start.

 

It won't change, for those of us with really mature teens, how we parent. I still will not have the slightest qualms about sending my 16 year old to France to visit his aunt and uncle. No issues. Nothing in the law would stop me from doing that. And I would be all for the ROTC program continuing and the military coming up with an extension program for minors until they reach 18, but again, adjusting that start age for school would eliminate a lot of that issue. The required compulsory school age in many of the European nations that are kicking out behinds in education is 5, many of them like Finland, 6. 

[swellmomma]

The thing is it's not like someone develops maturity the day they turn 18, so to say at 17 they lack maturity but the next day at 18 they don't is absurd.  We know the prefrontal cortex does not finish developing until 25. SO on that premise shall we say people should not be allowed to join the military, get married, have children etc until they have reached 25? Heck if looking at immaturity alone I know several people in their 30s and 40s that are still quite immature. To slap a set age on it rather than looking at other aspects like whether or not they have graduated, what field they want to be in (mechanical vs artillery etc) doesn't make sense.  Someone does not suddenly wake up more mature just because they have hit the magical age of 18.
 

[FaithManor]

The thing is it's not like someone develops maturity the day they turn 18, so to say at 17 they lack maturity but the next day at 18 they don't is absurd.  We know the prefrontal cortex does not finish developing until 25. SO on that premise shall we say people should not be allowed to join the military, get married, have children etc until they have reached 25? Heck if looking at immaturity alone I know several people in their 30s and 40s that are still quite immature. To slap a set age on it rather than looking at other aspects like whether or not they have graduated, what field they want to be in (mechanical vs artillery etc) doesn't make sense.  Someone does not suddenly wake up more mature just because they have hit the magical age of 18.

 

Agreed.

 

But we have no continuity in the law either, and that is a real problem. A very real problem, and in the context of this discussion prior to this somehow suddenly becoming about the military, for a government sanctioned marriage knowing that minors do not have the rights of majority, the state should not allow marriage before reaching the age of majority.

 

It isn't a lot of protection, but it is at least some protection, and it establishes a clear boundary for the state sanctioning of "adulthood" whereas all of this mumbo jumob of laws that all this, that, and the other, under this and that exception, and with a parental signature and what not, is not good. Again, we have some issues here in America that might not be issues elswhere.

 

In Virginia, it is still perfectly legal under several circumstances for a parent to marry off a child as young as 12.

 

Let that sink in.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/child-marriage-chart-reveals-girls-can-still-get-married-at-12-in-some-parts-of-the-us-as-lawmakers-a6921246.html

 

We need a clear line in the sand just so that this kind of crap can be prosecuted.

[swellmomma]

Agreed.

 

But we have no continuity in the law either, and that is a real problem. A very real problem, and in the context of this discussion prior to this somehow suddenly becoming about the military, for a government sanctioned marriage knowing that minors do not have the rights of majority, the state should not allow marriage before reaching the age of majority.

 

It isn't a lot of protection, but it is at least some protection, and it establishes a clear boundary for the state sanctioning of "adulthood" whereas all of this mumbo jumob of laws that all this, that, and the other, under this and that exception, and with a parental signature and what not, is not good. Again, we have some issues here in America that might not be issues elswhere.

 

In Virginia, it is still perfectly legal under several circumstances for a parent to marry off a child as young as 12.

 

Let that sink in.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/child-marriage-chart-reveals-girls-can-still-get-married-at-12-in-some-parts-of-the-us-as-lawmakers-a6921246.html

 

We need a clear line in the sand just so that this kind of crap can be prosecuted.

 

I agree marriage as young as 12 is insane.  But I do not think it is insane for younger than 18 with parental consent.  It's not ideal but not insane.  Growing up I was friends with a girl that married her high school boyfriend the summer between 11th and 12th grade.  Both set of parents signed consent, and no it wasn't due to a teen pregnancy.  They got married that summer and moved into the basement suite at his parents home and attended grade 12 as a married couple.  They were still 16 when they got married, turned 17 short while later and turned 18 shortly after graduation.  Fast forward all these years. They have been married 22 years, while many of us that got married in our 20s are divorced.  Most people assumed they wouldn't last, and yet they have.  Does that mean that all young marriages would? of course not.  But then again there is no guarantee that someone that waits until they are older will last either.  Yes there needs to be an adult age of majority, BUT I firmly believe that waivers can and should exist for teens that are 17 and ready to make those big decisions.  No 12 year olds should not be getting married.  I think saying age of adulthood is 18, but waivers for those that are nearing that is a good compromise.  The premise is that those 17 year olds are either graduated or about to, the risk of them being a drop out and ending up with no future.  Kids (specifically girls) getting married at 15-16 would risk becoming dependent on their spouse, losing their chance at a future beyond being a mother and wife (if they were adults and chose that path its one thing, but to have the choice stripped of them is another).  Certainly there are concerns but to draw the line and say 17yr olds are not capable of such decisions is not really going to be conducive to the discussion.  (Not saying you said that specifically, but it was said several times in this thread). And with that I have to leave to drive my dd17 to the orthodontist in the city 2 hours away.

 

 

[Murphy101]

It's funny, when I read your post I could hear my mom saying all the same things about having me out of wedlock in 1965. My bio father refused to acknowledge me, she was afraid to tell her parents....but she still says I saved her. Gave her a sense of purpose and direction ( keep this baby alive) ..........being saved in that manner is not a great argument to me for such serious life decisions.

It is not an argument for going out and getting pregnant, at any age or with any man.

 

It IS an argument for at least considering raising the bar of expectations for teens and young adults.

 

For generations previous, teens and young adults started families, went off to war and settled "new" lands. And for they managed to do okay for the most part with far rougher circumstances than anything modern first world couples of that age are likely to deal with.

 

At the very least between ages of 15-25, our laws recognize that there is a variation of maturity that parents are probably better able to gauge than a concrete set age without exceptions - that's why there are ways such as emancipation to allow for those judgement calls. I'm okay with that.

[EmseB]

.

 

To sum it up:

 

You said 17 year olds make mature decisions.

 

I said many 17+ do NOT make mature decisions. Even with "military discipline" in place.

I said they can make mature decisions. Not that all do. You started talking about dumb things jr enlisted do, which encompasses folks from 17-25. My point was that the stuff you were describing has little to do with age, IMO, and much more to do with personality and temperament. I got into a lot less shenanigans that many people who were 3 or 4 years older.

[swellmomma]

I have been corrected, looks like you can join the reserves at 16, full force at 17 here.

[Bluegoat]

All the different age ranges are crazy. I agree that we should pick and age and stick with it. Then we should all encourage our kids to postpone sex until that age (even if they aren't on board with waiting until marriage).

 

Best not make it too high, then.

 

And after all, if agreeing to sex is a kind of contract, and people can't make a contract until they are 17, or 21, then maybe there should be some real consequences for doing it.

 

If that sounds idiotic, it might be because it's an expectation out of step with biology.

[Bluegoat]

So...if the age of legal maturity were to be determined by brain maturation, shouldn't it be earlier for females than for males? Otherwise we're stuck with either making the more mature females wait around for legal adult status because their male contemporaries' brains haven't caught up yet, or making the males take on adult responsibility before they're ready just because the females already have functioning adult brains.

 

Actually something I have thought of quite frequently, especially with regards to driving ages. Lots of science indicating that female brains mature on average at least two years before male brains. 

 

Also - I would not say brains are really done even in their 20s.  They are finished certain kinds of growth (at least in some people, and there are some types of thinking most never develop) but people at that age are sill lacking experience.

 

A 60 year old will make much different decisions than a 20 year old who just hasn't had the experience to allow the level of complex thinking the older person has.

 

Being finished just isn't a good line IMO, because we could reasonably place it almost anywhere before old age sets in.

[Bluegoat]

My thing is, when in history have people in the 16-20 range not been making their way into the adult world in terms of choosing education, going into real work, opening businesses, getting married, and having kids?  Usually it's with the advice and guidance of their parents, but still, becoming adults.

 

A lot of the barriers to doing this well now are artificial, not natural.  17 year olds can make good mothers, in many ways that's an ideal time to have kids.  It doesn't work well for us because we make it impossible for most 17 year olds to care for themselves economically.  Even a married couple that age are going to face serious economic challenges, and those are one of the most common stresses on married couples.  No wonder young mothers and couples have problems.

 

Ages like 12 are crazy for marriage in a modern context.  In some societies (not ours) I think 14 could work, and 16 or 17 is also reasonable.  But once you are getting up towards 18 and 20, you are really putting off entry into adulthood in a way that I think is actually detrimental.  Being prevented from moving into adulthood is really disempowering.  And as far as those who are really immature - some of those are people who never will grow up.  But there is also a % of kids that don't seem to mature until they have been put into a position where they are expected to be adults and sometimes even knocked heads with it. 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Bluegoat

[ktgrok]

I think 18, or 17 and graduated high school, works. At that point we are talking a few months, one way or the other. 

[Scarlett]

A good point is that in times when 17-22 year olds were working, getting married, building houses, having babies....and it worked well...well those were times when family was a great source of support...both physically ( like giving them a piece of land to build a house on nearby ) and emotionally and just practically...help with the kids, or meals during childbirth or sickness....now families are often so broken and scattered it is impossible for that sort of extended family dynamic to work or help young ones. And oddly the families who DO have it together with good careers and income and intact families and not a bunch of dysfunction....those are generally the families discouraging older teens from getting on with their life.

 

Weird times we live in.

[Charlie]

There's lots of romanticism about families of the past, both in the Patriarchy movement (ie,  Duggars, Gothard, Let Them Marry) and in this thread. The past wasn't as quaint and noble as our story books and imaginations would have us believe. I'm curious when this "golden age" was that people are talking about.

[Bluegoat]

There's lots of romanticism about families of the past, both in the Patriarchy movement (ie,  Duggars, Gothard, Let Them Marry) and in this thread. The past wasn't as quaint and noble as our story books and imaginations would have us believe. I'm curious when this "golden age" was that people are talking about.

 

Why are do you think people are talking about some quaint, noble golden age? 

 

"What we do now is more enlighened because it's newer" is just as illogical as the whole "golden age" idea.

 

The goal I think should be to try and look at things fairly openly and realistically.  The past gives a window into other ways of doing things, people with different reference points.  The idea isn't that it was perfect, but that their assumptions were different and circumstantial factors were different.

 

When we see that 17 year olds have been able to make their way as adults, and indeed have had to, for the vast majority of history, it does suggest that there may be some artificiality if we think they can't in our culture.

 

You could also look at it biologically - if we were alien anthropologists,  where would we tend to pin human adulthood?  There would undoubtable be a range, but by about 16 I think most would say the transition was largely complete, including reproductive viability.  (And I think any time adulthood is pushed much past sexual fertility you are going to need serious social taboos or repercussions to control it becoming parents, and it will never be completely successful.)

 

I tend to think that nature doesn't tend to support animals becoming reproducing adults without giving them the basic resources to play the role. 

 

So that suggests some artificialities as well.

[Murphy101]

There's lots of romanticism about families of the past, both in the Patriarchy movement (ie, Duggars, Gothard, Let Them Marry) and in this thread. The past wasn't as quaint and noble as our story books and imaginations would have us believe. I'm curious when this "golden age" was that people are talking about.

What? I have no delusions about the past. It's simple fact that younger couples existed and for the most part they did indeed survive and mostly manage to raise families and live decent lives. That's not at all saying they didn't have plenty of sufferings. In fact, my point was they seem to have managed *despite* hardships no modern first world couple is likely to have to worry about.

 

It was no golden age. But NOW is a golden age and yet there's this unreasonable (to me) expectation that young couples are incapable and too immature to manage even the most basic of life decsisions that were common just a couple generations ago.

[Charlie]

Why are do you think people are talking about some quaint, noble golden age? 

 

"What we do now is more enlighened because it's newer" is just as illogical as the whole "golden age" idea.

 

The goal I think should be to try and look at things fairly openly and realistically.  The past gives a window into other ways of doing things, people with different reference points.  The idea isn't that it was perfect, but that their assumptions were different and circumstantial factors were different.

 

When we see that 17 year olds have been able to make their way as adults, and indeed have had to, for the vast majority of history, it does suggest that there may be some artificiality if we think they can't in our culture.

 

You could also look at it biologically - if we were alien anthropologists,  where would we tend to pin human adulthood?  There would undoubtable be a range, but by about 16 I think most would say the transition was largely complete, including reproductive viability.  (And I think any time adulthood is pushed much past sexual fertility you are going to need serious social taboos or repercussions to control it becoming parents, and it will never be completely successful.)

 

I tend to think that nature doesn't tend to support animals becoming reproducing adults without giving them the basic resources to play the role. 

 

So that suggests some artificialities as well.

 

There are a few recent comments about young couples doing okay, that getting married at a young age worked out well. In comparing an era where being a "spinster" the same age one might graduate from college today, suggesting young marriage worked out well is to forget that getting married in one's 30's simply wasn't done for most of the population. It worked because it was the standard. I think you touch on some the reasons why, and I don't disagree with that.

 

I read some of these comments as nostalgic because these were the same days in which widows and orphans were sent to poor houses to work off an impossible debt, indentured servitude, slavery, unrestricted child labor, long factory hours with low pay and no compensation for injury, shabbily built housing that accommodated families in tiny, overcrowded, unsanitary living spaces provided a measure of cheap labor that allowed economic mobility for the small but growing middle class. Marriage bound a couple for life, regardless of incompatibility, abuse, infidelity, abandonment, or any of the standards we attribute to a "good marriage" today. In essence, I think young marriage worked well for some, terrible for others, and functionally for most in that it provided and prepared the next generation for life in that culture for those who were not unfortunate enough to have disabilities that rendered them incapable of competing with their peers for food and shelter. Those who couldn't keep up were used, abused, and discarded with alarming social approval.

 

I found the last sentence in the comment previous to mine to be particularly nostalgic. By what standard does the poster say that the families with stable income and intact families are the ones discouraging older teens from "getting on with life"? How is "getting on with life" understood here, and what does that discouragement look like? Is she taking into account other variables like today's economic, housing market and job availability as opposed to what it was even 20 years ago, much less two centuries ago?  What about physical, emotional or mental issues that were misunderstood, hidden, punished, or ignored in the past but addressed today? What about the fact that medical care, vaccines and antibiotics alone, account for a population increase that contributed to modern stresses on society unknown to generations in the past? Which era is she comparing modern families to anyway? It just seems to me to be a sweeping generalization about people and society today, and an appeal to apply generalized and simplified solutions to modern problems, which suggested to me a romanticized view of the past.

[Bluegoat]

There are a few recent comments about young couples doing okay, that getting married at a young age worked out well. In comparing an era where being a "spinster" the same age one might graduate from college today, suggesting young marriage worked out well is to forget that getting married in one's 30's simply wasn't done for most of the population. It worked because it was the standard. I think you touch on some the reasons why, and I don't disagree with that.

 

I read some of these comments as nostalgic because these were the same days in which widows and orphans were sent to poor houses to work off an impossible debt, indentured servitude, slavery, unrestricted child labor, long factory hours with low pay and no compensation for injury, shabbily built housing that accommodated families in tiny, overcrowded, unsanitary living spaces provided a measure of cheap labor that allowed economic mobility for the small but growing middle class. Marriage bound a couple for life, regardless of incompatibility, abuse, infidelity, abandonment, or any of the standards we attribute to a "good marriage" today. In essence, I think young marriage worked well for some, terrible for others, and functionally for most in that it provided and prepared the next generation for life in that culture for those who were not unfortunate enough to have disabilities that rendered them incapable of competing with their peers for food and shelter. Those who couldn't keep up were used, abused, and discarded with alarming social approval.

 

I found the last sentence in the comment previous to mine to be particularly nostalgic. By what standard does the poster say that the families with stable income and intact families are the ones discouraging older teens from "getting on with life"? How is "getting on with life" understood here, and what does that discouragement look like? Is she taking into account other variables like today's economic, housing market and job availability as opposed to what it was even 20 years ago, much less two centuries ago?  What about physical, emotional or mental issues that were misunderstood, hidden, punished, or ignored in the past but addressed today? What about the fact that medical care, vaccines and antibiotics alone, account for a population increase that contributed to modern stresses on society unknown to generations in the past? Which era is she comparing modern families to anyway? It just seems to me to be a sweeping generalization about people and society today, and an appeal to apply generalized and simplified solutions to modern problems, which suggested to me a romanticized view of the past.

 

It's true that people really were tied together in the past even when things were really bad - I'm not convinced though that it was really because of getting married at younger ages.  And a lot of the issues you mention just aren't connected to what we are talking about, so I don't see how they fit in.  The fact that many people died early because of disease isn't really a factor in considering whether people in their late teens are capable of significant like decisions, so far as I can see.  I think you are reading that in in some way to what's been said.

 

As far as the comment about families discouraging older teens to get on with life - I tend to think there is some truth to that, though its not something I have ever heard of being studied in a statistical kind of way.  And obviously nothing is universal. 

 

But as I understand it, the poster was suggesting that the young people who were/are able to make out the best with their life choices are the ones where a stable family, including financially, can help.  I don't think that is terribly controversial - when a family can help a young person out with education expenses, or a young couple with a stable accommodations or childcare help (for example,) they are likely to be better off, and that will offset what are often real stress-points in the lives of young adults.

 

In my observation though, it's often the middle to upper middle class type families in business/professions that are the most stable economically that are most likely discourage older teens from doing things like military, or getting married, or having kids - they want them to wait until they are finished their post-secondary education, or established in a job, and so on.  OTOH in many working class households I know they accept that young adults will be likely to marry/live with a partner, have a child, go into a job or job training that will direct their life choices, or join the military - those are more likely to just be accepted as the things one does after finishing high school at which point they are adults who should be contributing to the family or self-sufficient.

[Charlie]

What? I have no delusions about the past. It's simple fact that younger couples existed and for the most part they did indeed survive and mostly manage to raise families and live decent lives. That's not at all saying they didn't have plenty of sufferings. In fact, my point was they seem to have managed *despite* hardships no modern first world couple is likely to have to worry about.

 

It was no golden age. But NOW is a golden age and yet there's this unreasonable (to me) expectation that young couples are incapable and too immature to manage even the most basic of life decsisions that were common just a couple generations ago.

 

I don't know if you're comparing today to 19th century or 16th or earlier or later, but today in western societies children aren't susceptible to things like smallpox, infection from injury, malnutrition, cholera and the like in nearly the same percentage they were even a century ago. Children don't work in factories, boys don't work hard labor at 14, girls aren't limited to domestic duties like was common for children two centuries ago. Every era has its own unique set of problems and I think appealing to tradition in this regard is to gloss over other information that contributes to living "decent lives," both yesterday and today. But I didn't 't think your comments were delusional and I'm sorry if I appeared to suggest it.

[Charlie]

It's true that people really were tied together in the past even when things were really bad - I'm not convinced though that it was really because of getting married at younger ages.  And a lot of the issues you mention just aren't connected to what we are talking about, so I don't see how they fit in.  The fact that many people died early because of disease isn't really a factor in considering whether people in their late teens are capable of significant like decisions, so far as I can see.  I think you are reading that in in some way to what's been said.

 

As far as the comment about families discouraging older teens to get on with life - I tend to think there is some truth to that, though its not something I have ever heard of being studied in a statistical kind of way.  And obviously nothing is universal. 

 

But as I understand it, the poster was suggesting that the young people who were/are able to make out the best with their life choices are the ones where a stable family, including financially, can help.  I don't think that is terribly controversial - when a family can help a young person out with education expenses, or a young couple with a stable accommodations or childcare help (for example,) they are likely to be better off, and that will offset what are often real stress-points in the lives of young adults.

 

In my observation though, it's often the middle to upper middle class type families in business/professions that are the most stable economically that are most likely discourage older teens from doing things like military, or getting married, or having kids - they want them to wait until they are finished their post-secondary education, or established in a job, and so on.  OTOH in many working class households I know they accept that young adults will be likely to marry/live with a partner, have a child, go into a job or job training that will direct their life choices, or join the military - those are more likely to just be accepted as the things one does after finishing high school at which point they are adults who should be contributing to the family or self-sufficient.

 

The issues I'm talking about contributed to the practicality of getting married young. It's no longer practical to encourage people to get married for a variety of reasons. I'm referring to the generalized ideas that imply a kind of nostalgic reminiscence of the good old days when times were simpler and children weren't oppressed. I find it ironic, the idea that young adults are oppressed now when they've got access to education, medicine, birth control, employment opportunities, relief from abusive parents, freedom to understand, accept and express their religious and social beliefs, social art and entertainment preferences, and sexual orientation in ways unprecedented before the 21st century. I don't think this is a "golden age" in any way, and I don't think the past was rotten. I just think the Duggars' capitalize on a desire for a solution many stresses of today, a return to "simpler, safer times," and I see some references to that appeal in this thread. I just disagree the times were simpler or safer. They were different. The problem were different. The opportunities were different.

[Murphy101]

I don't know if you're comparing today to 19th century or 16th or earlier or later, but today in western societies children aren't susceptible to things like smallpox, infection from injury, malnutrition, cholera and the like in nearly the same percentage they were even a century ago. Children don't work in factories, boys don't work hard labor at 14, girls aren't limited to domestic duties like was common for children two centuries ago. Every era has its own unique set of problems and I think appealing to tradition in this regard is to gloss over other information that contributes to living "decent lives," both yesterday and today. But I didn't 't think your comments were delusional and I'm sorry if I appeared to suggest it.

I'm not appealing to tradition in the sense of let's make everyone marry by 20.

 

I'm appealing to facts like, in prior generations they had to endure far more hardships than current 19 yr olds are likely to face and yet they still manage to live a mature and responsible life and raise families.

 

I'm arguing that the notion that "young people today" have somehow collectively regressed to the point that we can't expect most of them to live, work and raise families at similiar ages to previous generations. They can. We might not encourage it for various reasons but it's usually not really about actually ability imo.

[Frances]

It's true that people really were tied together in the past even when things were really bad - I'm not convinced though that it was really because of getting married at younger ages. And a lot of the issues you mention just aren't connected to what we are talking about, so I don't see how they fit in. The fact that many people died early because of disease isn't really a factor in considering whether people in their late teens are capable of significant like decisions, so far as I can see. I think you are reading that in in some way to what's been said.

 

As far as the comment about families discouraging older teens to get on with life - I tend to think there is some truth to that, though its not something I have ever heard of being studied in a statistical kind of way. And obviously nothing is universal.

 

But as I understand it, the poster was suggesting that the young people who were/are able to make out the best with their life choices are the ones where a stable family, including financially, can help. I don't think that is terribly controversial - when a family can help a young person out with education expenses, or a young couple with a stable accommodations or childcare help (for example,) they are likely to be better off, and that will offset what are often real stress-points in the lives of young adults.

 

In my observation though, it's often the middle to upper middle class type families in business/professions that are the most stable economically that are most likely discourage older teens from doing things like military, or getting married, or having kids - they want them to wait until they are finished their post-secondary education, or established in a job, and so on. OTOH in many working class households I know they accept that young adults will be likely to marry/live with a partner, have a child, go into a job or job training that will direct their life choices, or join the military - those are more likely to just be accepted as the things one does after finishing high school at which point they are adults who should be contributing to the family or self-sufficient.

And research has shown that this difference is one of the things contributing to the growing income inequality in this country. Being economically insecure and married or not married with children puts enormous strain on a relationship, often leading to divorce or breakup which can result in even worse poverty, especially for single moms. While getting married and staying married is one of the key predictors of economic security. So why we would encourage people to enter into a situation, having a family, for which they are not economically prepared? What's the rush?

 

When my husband was in grad school, we lived and were RAs in married family housing. And almost universally, there was much more stress on the undergrad couples compared to the grad couples, especially financial stress. Most of the grad couples had one parent home full-time because their degree was fully funded and included a stipend. While the undergrad couples were always trying to juggle school, work, daycare, homework, sick kids, etc. And the ones for whom things seemed the most difficult were older couples pursuing undergrad degrees. While I admired them, I certainly didn't envy them or wish I had started a family while still in college.

[Bluegoat]

And research has shown that this difference is one of the things contributing to the growing income inequality in this country. Being economically insecure and married or not married with children puts enormous strain on a relationship, often leading to divorce or breakup which can result in even worse poverty, especially for single moms. While getting married and staying married is one of the key predictors of economic security. So why we would encourage people to enter into a situation, having a family, for which they are not economically prepared? What's the rush?

 

When my husband was in grad school, we lived and were RAs in married family housing. And almost universally, there was much more stress on the undergrad couples compared to the grad couples, especially financial stress. Most of the grad couples had one parent home full-time because their degree was fully funded and included a stipend. While the undergrad couples were always trying to juggle school, work, daycare, homework, sick kids, etc. And the ones for whom things seemed the most difficult were older couples pursuing undergrad degrees. While I admired them, I certainly didn't envy them or wish I had started a family while still in college.

 

Yes, but we aren't actually talking about the cultural economic aspect, we are talking about whether people that age, as human beings, have the ability to make those kinds of decisions.  The fact that it is harder to be financially independant now at a young age doesn't mean that somehow people are less innately able to be mature at that age, except in so far as not giving them that responsibility actually creates that situation.

 

But in that case, avoiding giving responsibility will actually tend to make the situation worse.

 

As far as the income inequality - yes, it's a problem, but I don't think delaying adulthood more is actually a good solution, I think it's a Band-Aid that will only ever work for some people.  A real solution would mean rebalancing our economic and educational options for young people.

[Charlie]

I'm not appealing to tradition in the sense of let's make everyone marry by 20.

 

I'm appealing to facts like, in prior generations they had to endure far more hardships than current 19 yr olds are likely to face and yet they still manage to live a mature and responsible life and raise families.

 

I'm arguing that the notion that "young people today" have somehow collectively regressed to the point that we can't expect most of them to live, work and raise families at similiar ages to previous generations. They can. We might not encourage it for various reasons but it's usually not really about actually ability imo.

 

I have no disagreement with your last paragraph, and recognize you weren't talking about everyone getting married by 20. I was referring to the romanticism of the past, and while you don't imply that in this post, you use qualifier like "decent lives" upthread that I think do appeal to nostalgia. It's subtle, I'll grant that, but enough that it caught my eye. I don't know what era you're comparing today's young adult experiences with, but in the past, it wasn't necessarily "decent" if you were impoverished and working in a factory 10 hours a day, orphaned and taken to a work house, a young woman who aspired to more than domestic duty, a person of color, a Jew, a homosexual, had a disability, and the like.

[Bluegoat]

I think "decent" would probably be best interpreted in the context of the discussion.

[Murphy101]

I have no disagreement with your last paragraph, and recognize you weren't talking about everyone getting married by 20. I was referring to the romanticism of the past, and while you don't imply that in this post, you use qualifier like "decent lives" upthread that I think do appeal to nostalgia. It's subtle, I'll grant that, but enough that it caught my eye. I don't know what era you're comparing today's young adult experiences with, but in the past, it wasn't necessarily "decent" if you were impoverished and working in a factory 10 hours a day, orphaned and taken to a work house, a young woman who aspired to more than domestic duty, a person of color, a Jew, a homosexual, had a disability, and the like.

Decent is not romantic. It's not an such an ambitious description of life.

 

Decent is in context of the times then and the times now.

 

Point in fact in your own post. They were far far more hard pressed in so many ways than anything even slightly comparable to today, but they most certainly did manage to raise families and work to better themselves and society. Were they living and working in conditions we want to recreate? Nope. Were they living decent lives in which they worked hard, raised mostly loving families, and tried to better their lives and society? Yes, they most certainly did.

 

And yet here we are in modern first world countries talking like the current generation just can't manage because they aren't capable of that maturity. I call bull on that.