Regular reader Shotacon writes in with a piece on how minors have been subjugated much like women of prior generations. This is a long one, but well worth the read.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. — George Santayana

Minors' lack of agency

Looking at how minors and their capacity are viewed in today's society, it begs the question, haven't we been here before?

Minors today exist in a state of legal "merger" with their parents. In many jurisdictions, a minor cannot sign a contract, undergo medical procedures, or even work certain hours without parental "cover." A child's identity is often legally subsumed by their parents to "protect" the family unit. Today's minors face what sociologists call "Safetyism" or "Helicopter Parenting," or worse "Lawnmower Parenting." While previous generations of children (like those in the mid-20th century) had high levels of "free-range" agency—walking miles alone, managing their own time—modern minors are often under 24/7 digital and physical surveillance.

The "protection" offered by the guardian eventually becomes the justification for restricting the subject's freedom. If you are "too vulnerable" to be outside, you never learn the skills to be outside, which "proves" you need more protection. This creates a functional dependency. Even if a 16-year-old works a job, their ability to use that money for independence (like renting an apartment) is legally blocked.

What is their rationale for this? We see the argument regarding the "developing adolescent brain." While neurologically true, and lasting through to around age 32, this data is often used to justify broad restrictions on autonomy that previous generations of young people (who took on "adult" responsibilities) did not face.

Where have we seen this before?

Starting under English Common Law (which heavily influenced Western legal systems), a woman's legal identity was "covered" by her husband upon marriage. She became a feme covert. This is often historically and sociologically referred to as coverture or civil death, underpinned by the ideology of separate spheres. For centuries, this wasn't just a social "vibe"—it was a rigid legal and structural framework that rendered women legally invisible.

She could not own property or keep her own wages. She could not sign contracts or sue/be sued without her husband. Legally, the husband and wife were considered one person—and that person was the husband.

During the Industrial Revolution, the world was divided into two distinct realms, The public sphere (male) focusing on business, politics, and labor—viewed as competitive, dangerous, and morally taxing. And the private sphere (female) focusing on the home—viewed as a "haven" where women were the "angels in the house," protected from the harsh outside world. This created a feedback loop—because women were "protected" from the public sphere, they never gained the experience to navigate it, which was then used as "proof" that they were naturally incapable of doing so.

To reinforce these social structures, 19th-century "science" often claimed women were biologically more fragile. Doctors frequently diagnosed women with "hysteria" or "neurasthenia," suggesting that intellectual pursuit or public life would physically harm their reproductive systems. Craniometry (the study of skull size) was often weaponized to "prove" women had lesser cognitive capacity, justifying the need for a male guardian to handle financial and legal matters.

Today's mirror image

This long standing pervasive belief of women mentally, emotionally, physically, and socially being incapable and requiring "male coverture", directly mirrors how minors and adolescents are viewed today. They are often thought of as being incapable of almost anything in life that requires any level of cognitive process. High-schoolers are chauffeured to school in the backs of their parent's large SUVs, when previous generations of elementary school students walked to school alone in the snow. There are videos on YouTube of mothers cutting the steaks of 14 year olds into bite sized chunks, while previous generations of kids designed and built structurally sound skateboard half-pipes, by themselves.

Those of us Gen-Xers remember playing outside all day, riding bikes for miles and getting into all kinds of situations, without any parental supervision (or knowledge). The only rule was to be home when the street lights came on. We had free-range to live our lives, learn lessons by doing and figuring shit out, and we became stronger and smarter because of it.

But yet today, minors are considered too fragile and feeble-minded to be provided agency and the freedom to take on the most basic of tasks. There are instances of parents providing their 10-year-olds with pre-written "conversation starters" or "conflict resolution scripts" to use with friends, rather than letting the children navigate a disagreement over a toy or game naturally. There are cases of parents who continue to brush the teeth of, or even physically bathe, 11 or 12-year-olds who have the motor skills and mental acuity to do it themselves, simply because the parent "does it more thoroughly." In the case of Tiffany Smith, she wholly took over and abused her "Squad" of tweens as her "performers" to build up her daughter's online channels as a coverture to grow them bigger, instead of just letting the kids build it and run it themselves as it had initially started out. (Bad Influence: The Dark Side of Kid Influencing—Netflix).

Judith Levine has indicated in her book "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex" (2002) that American society’s intense focus on "protecting" children from sex often does more harm than the sex itself. Levine argues that by treating all adolescent sexual expression as a danger to be suppressed, we deprive young people of the information and agency they need to navigate relationships safely and healthily. Today's "minor neo-coverture" prevents minors from consenting to sex, even when biology has provided them with all of the tools to have meaningful and satisfying sexual lives free from harm, if they chose to do so. They have proven they are able to successfully navigate sexual activity, whether it be throughout history (prior to 1885), or even today behind parent's backs and in secret.

John Holt's "Escape from Childhood" (1974) is considered a foundational text in the philosophy of youth rights. Holt argues that the modern concept of "childhood" is not a natural biological state, but a social invention—a "walled garden" that eventually becomes a prison.

He argues that for much of human history, children were simply "small adults" who participated in the life of the community. He posits that the modern "institution of childhood" was created to segregate young people from the adult world, supposedly for their protection, but effectively for the convenience of adults.

The damage coverture causes to minors

When parents act as "lawnmowers"—clearing every obstacle before a child even encounters it—they unintentionally starve the child of the "psychological nutrients" needed for adult stability. Because the parent handles the friction of life, the minor never develops the mental "calluses" required to handle discomfort. It has been proven that when cognitive-load is put on the prefrontal cortex, especially with a developing brain, that it greatly enables a learning environment and promotes mental and emotional growth.

Minor neo-coverture also causes a silent emotional damage. When a parent solves a problem for a minor, the child internalizes the message: "I am not competent enough to handle this myself." This leads to a "fragile center" where the child feels incapable of making decisions or taking action without external validation or rescue. Minors raised this way often have a very narrow "window of tolerance" for negative emotions. Because they haven't practiced small failures (like a forgotten lunch or a bad grade), minor setbacks are perceived as full-blown catastrophes. Without early exposure to pressure, their nervous systems stay "soft." Even basic social friction or academic challenges can trigger panic attacks or complete emotional shutdowns.

Executive functions are the brain's "management system"—skills like planning, organizing, and problem-solving. If a parent manages the schedule, packs the bag, and negotiates with teachers, the child’s prefrontal cortex doesn't get the "workout" it needs to develop these skills. In their mid-to-late teens, these minors often struggle with basic decision-making because they have never been allowed to live with the consequences of a "bad" choice. This becomes the self fulfilling prophecy where society claims that minors lack the skills required to consent to sexual activity, or make any decision on their own. When minors are stripped of their human rights, dignity, and agency, they are stripped of the very opportunity to prove that they know how to step up and make sound decisions.

Where do we go from here?

Holt suggests that the "protection" we offer children—shielding them from work, money, and responsibility—is actually a form of enforced dependency. By denying them the right to participate in "serious" life, we stunt their growth and make them feel useless, which leads to the very "immaturity" we use to justify their lack of rights.

In his book, Holt offers his proposal that all adult rights and responsibilities should be available to any person, regardless of age, who wants to take them on. These include:

• The right to work for money and manage their own finances.
• The right to choose their own education (or choose not to attend school).
• The right to travel and live away from home if they choose.
• The right to legal privacy and control over their own bodies.

Holt advocates for moving away from a system where a person's rights are determined by their status (being a "minor") to one determined by contract. If a young person can fulfill the requirements of a job or a lease, their age should be irrelevant.

He is highly critical of compulsory schooling, viewing it as the primary mechanism for enforcing the "childhood" status. He argues that schools function as "warehouses" that keep young people out of the labor market and under constant surveillance, preventing them from learning through real-world experience. This is backed up by real-world trials. Before 1970, Finland's educational system ranked very poorly. Today, it is ranked #1 in reading and in the top five for math and science. What did they do to turn things around? Finnish students have a say in which topics they explore and how they investigate them, integrating various subjects into a single real-world project. This makes the lesson feel relevant to their own lives rather than an abstract requirement. This free-range autonomy promotes greater learning outcomes.

Ultimately, Holt argues for a "child-friendly" world rather than a "child-centered" one. He envisions a society where children are not kept in a separate, simplified bubble, but are allowed to observe and participate in the full range of adult activities at their own pace.

Holt's work mirrors the history of female coverture by highlighting that whenever a group of people is told they are "too vulnerable" to handle their own rights, they are effectively being denied the very experiences required to become "capable." Just as women had to "escape" the legal status of feme covert, Holt argues that young people must be allowed to "escape" the legal status of childhood.

Given the chance, minors always find ways to amaze us in ways we could never imagine. Jake Collisson, at 10 years old, had been making waves in the guitar world with some truly high-energy rock performances. Jake’s most viral moment happened at the Painshill Park festival in June 2024. He was in the audience with a sign asking to play, and Rick Parfitt Jnr (son of Status Quo’s Rick Parfitt) invited him on stage with the RPJ Band. He performed Guns N' Roses' "Sweet Child o' Mine," nailing the iconic Slash solos with incredible precision and stage presence. The performance was so impressive that Rick Parfitt Jnr surprised him with an invitation to play the main stage at CarFest (30,000 people), a massive UK festival hosted by Chris Evans. Additionally, Jake was invited to appear on the Jennifer Hudson Show where Slash himself surprised Jake with a heart-felt video message affirming his extraordinary talent.

At just 15 years old, Owen Cooper became a major fixture of the 2025–2026 awards season due to his flawless performance in the hit Netflix series "Adolescence." He won a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Limited Series, making him the youngest male winner in Emmy history. He also won a Golden Globe Award, Critics' Choice TV Award, and a Screen Actors Guild (Actor) Award. Despite Cooper never landing any role prior, his critically acclaimed performance centers on the technical and emotional difficulty of the role at the age of 14. The series is famous for being filmed in a "one-shot" style (a single continuous take per episode), meaning Cooper had to maintain intense emotional stakes for long stretches without the safety net of edits. Additionally, critics praised how he balanced the vulnerability of a child with the harrowing reality of a murder suspect. Many outlets, including the Evening Standard, described it as one of the greatest acting debuts by a child actor in history. Interestingly, Cooper was a complete unknown from Warrington, UK with no prior professional acting experience before being cast by Stephen Graham and Jack Thorne.

Owen Cooper at 14, smashed a difficult emotional performance, long "one-shot" takes, memorizing entire episodes of lines and blocking, all with no prior formal training, while garnering multiple industry awards, going up against trained adults and carrying the main story-line, yet he was deemed too incompetent to consent to sex. Let that sink in. Those of you adults who are sexually active, would you be able to pull off what Owen did?

Time and time again, when minors are provided human dignity, respect, and agency, they continue to show that they are wholly competent. We just need to let them be free to step up and show up for themselves. Providing them agency for self-determination will produce better outcomes in their lives. This is the basis for free-range parenting and organizations such as letgrow.org.

The Irony

Just as feminists during the industrial revolution (1885) were fighting for their own rights, they were throwing minors under the bus by raising the question of free agency, morality, and also raising the age of consent from 10-12 to 18.

The Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), led by figures like Frances Willard, utilized a strategy she called "Do Everything." To win the vote and legal personhood, they didn't just argue for equality; they argued that women were the "National Housekeepers" and the "Protectors of the Home."

To prove women deserved rights, they leaned heavily into the idea that children were inherently vulnerable and required state protection—protection that only women, as voters, could provide. This created a trade-off—to elevate the status of the "Mother," they lowered the status of the "Child" from a semi-independent worker to a dependent ward of the state.

Historically, as we discussed with John Holt, older children and adolescents had significant agency; they worked, contributed to the family economy, and navigated public spaces. This worked well throughout history.

The WCTU argued that the "Public Sphere" (saloons, factories, city streets) was a moral cesspool. To justify their own political power, they championed laws that removed minors from the public sphere (child labor laws, compulsory education). While these were intended to prevent exploitation, they effectively stripped minors of their economic agency and placed them under the permanent "protection" of adults. One of the WCTU's most successful campaigns was raising the age of consent (which was set at an average of 10-12 years old in many US states in the late 1800s).

Their rhetorical framing often lumped together 8-year-olds and 17-year-olds as equally "incapable" of making any decisions which failed to take into account not only the abilities of a minor at any age, but the difference between the child brain (younger minors), and the adolescent brain (more closely aligned with adult brain). This reinforced the legal idea that anyone under a certain age (18)—regardless of their actual maturity or circumstances—was a "child" with zero agency, mirroring the very coverture laws women were trying to escape.

The feminist movement of this era made a "deal":

• Women are not "vulnerable" (as coverture claimed); they are mature, moral, and capable.
• Minors are the only ones who are truly "vulnerable" (impulsive, and needing control).

By emphasizing the extreme helplessness of the child, feminists like those in the WCTU proved that women were essential as legal guardians. If the child was seen as a semi-independent "small adult," the mother's "special" protective role (and her argument for the vote to protect the home) was weakened.

The WCTU was a major proponent of the "Common School Movement", thereby selling minors down the river so they can gain women's agency in the workforce. They helped move minors from "learning by doing" (agency-heavy) to "learning by sitting" (agency-light). Women thereby gained professional roles as teachers and administrators within these schools—gaining their own career agency—while minors were legally mandated to be in these institutions, losing their freedom of movement and choice.

The WCTU was self-driven to win at any cost, that they sold out the freedoms of minors in the process. They used the "Vulnerability Argument" that had been used against women for centuries and redirected it toward minors. Looking at today's social view of minors, you will need to ask yourself what side of history you want to be on. Will you continue to subjugate minors and strip their futures for a socially fabricated lie that they "lack the capacity"? Will you bubble-wrap and lock away your "prize possessions" like porcelain dolls in a curio cabinet, never to be touched? Minors have throughout history proven that they have capacity, that is if they are not controlled by uneducated forces who claim they "have their interests at heart", but in reality are failing them on a daily basis. Minors, above all else, are humans who deserve to be treated as such and not have their identities diminished.

It's time to return to normalcy and let minors show up for themselves, without the burden of society consistently showing them that they are incapable of anything. Infantilization of adolescents only harms them. Yet, society claims that loving and caring MAPs, who actually respect minors as humans, are the ones creating harm.

"Fate it seems is not without a sense of irony." — Morpheus, The Matrix (1999)