Mere numerical age criteria hurts; we can do better L8RWP2

^L8RWP2: Revision 649 -2010.09.14pst2242 (~50% complete 1st draft):
..

Contents —Read for a quick full-picture of what's here

1. L4JND9:  The problem: nearly every age-based group today has age criteria with 2 serious & hurtful consequences
2. L4JIOU:  My reaction to all this is deep & bitter-sweet: mere numerical age criteria hurts, we can do better.
1. L4JIXQ:  In fact I react here more profoundly than you might guess, as
1. L4JJAP:  I've 9+ months of experience founding & running a local young adult group myself
2. L4JIY6:  indeed it touches me personally as I've been the first-hand victim of numerical age discrimination, seemingly more than most
2. L4JJOV:  On the positive, I well see the need age-based groups:
3. L4JK54:  But on the negative, Mere numerical age criteria hurts; we can do better!
1. L4JNQT:  Einstein said "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.", but mere numerical criteria is TOO simple so it hurts.
1. L4JK76:  Mere numerical age criteria is unnatural & regularly heavily inaccurate so hurts.
2. L4JNXJ:  Secondarily, mere numerical age criteria is also incomplete: as explained above, it cuts out the often-crucial supporters who don't fit that age range so hurts again.
4. L4JKEU:  Now I DO see good solution isn't obvious: yes, the problem is tricky.
5. L4JKGE:  And, if you're interested, I know of a group (though only one) which has apparently solved all these problems
6. L4JUBZ:  So better criteria exists, and is not hard to do: just copy what they've done!
3. L4JQ3H:  Easy things you can do about this...

1. ^L4JND9:  The problem: nearly every age-based group today has age criteria with 2 serious & hurtful consequences

   ^L4JH7U:  Though I'm sure it's unintentional and the designers did the best they could at the time, as of today 2010.06.24 EVERY group but one that I've seen which caters to a particular age range seems to have two serious & hurtful problems as far as its membership criteria:
   
1. ^L4JHAF: First & foremost, as far as the targeted age, it either arbitrarily (so hurtfully) discriminates or else is confusingly unclear:
1. ^L4JH9H: Analogous to the US law saying 18=adult, it simply gives specific numerical age rage, as 18 to 35 for a Young Adult group, and basically says you need to be this age to join and once you've grown beyond this age often suggestively saying "please leave so we don't have to remove you"
2. ^L4JHIF:  It tries to defer that ugly last situation with words like "-ish", as by instead defining Young Adult as "18 to 35ish", so now we get to argue & drag out & put off (until it becomes an overwhelming problem) when to not allow people and throw people out as they grow older.
3.  ^L4JHNK:  It skips the age question, for instance just says "We're young adults", possibly intentionally to avoid these obviously sticky situations, but that opens up a new problem of now what age range the group is for. For instance, for "young adult" does this mean 18 to 25, 18 to 30, 18 to 40?  In fact, I've also heard, especially in the book market, that "young adult" can also mean 14 to 18, could be really messy mixing in non-legal adults.
2. ^L4JHYS:  And secondly, as as far as any other involved ages are concerned, most of the time they are forgotten.  But the reality is that no age group (including groups of an age group) exist in a vacuum, and success (which probably should include membership) comes from the interaction & support of other ages of people.  Most notably, serious trouble would result in many kids groups if the group didn't also include adults to supervise -- well how do you word these sort of things into the membership criteria. In the case of infants & children, the need for adults being involved is so critical that almost certainly this will be somehow worded in.  But for groups of most all other ages, the need is still there (just not is strong) but is generally forgotten.  For example, with young adult groups focusing on a particular topic, many times there will be people older who, thinking of the future, are very interested in and involved in seeing these groups succeed, but typically the group's membership criteria will have no place for such people, even though they can play a very important & sometimes even official role in the group.
   

2.  ^L4JIOU:  My reaction to all this is deep & bitter-sweet: mere numerical age criteria hurts, we can do better.

1. ^L4JIXQ:  In fact I react here more profoundly than you might guess, as

1. ^L4JJAP:  I've 9+ months of experience founding & running a local young adult group myself

   (indeed developing one which could be franchised & replicated across the globe), and so, as always I strive carefully & fairly devise rules, so have thought about this age-criteria problem deeply, and
   

2. ^L4JIY6:  indeed it touches me personally as I've been the first-hand victim of numerical age discrimination, seemingly more than most

   ^L4JNMK:  And nervously letting myself be the Guinea Pig here, I'll share my personal experiences so to help explain the problem (but not to poke apart me!):
   
1. ^L4JL3O:  I have the normal priorities & needs of the age that I look (dating, dancing, networking, flirting (I do that a lot), hanging out with others who look like me, etc) and
   
2. ^L4JL42:  if I nobody knows my numerical age, everything goes fine indefinitely (hey, life got by 3.8 billion years without numbers, so no surprise); but
3. ^L4JL4J:  if I reveal my numerical age, typically I have all that good stuff wrongfully taken away from me, and frequently brutally --over number(!), merely because of people's over-faith of what those two digits mean --for, other than possibly medical doctors, no one is schooled in exactly what a numerical age truthfully implies, but most everyone today seems to feel they can brutally judge by those two digits --that hurts and is wrong!
   ^L4JMB7:  Now if everybody (and I mean everybody) has first gotten to know me for months, then my numerical age is just fine to most people - they know me now so it doesn't matter, as yes, without the number, I was what just what they first saw; BUT (1) that's rarely possible since many groups & forms & people that demand your age up front (I don't ask people any more, of either sex); and still (2) "How old is x" is a super common question, so if they tell anyone they know who doesn't know me, that person will likely flip out and think they and I are both crazy --so for me it's generally best never to tell.
4. ^L4JLDU:  But NOT telling my age isn't easy.
1. ^L4JN6T:  Especially of younger adults, youth, & men, people often ask "How old are you?" without even thinking anything of it.
2. ^L4JN74:  And the best reply I've ever come up with his "Hey, you know men never tell their age." (and then avoid further questions of it).
   
3. ^L4JN8B:  As by telling really why I don't tell & my numerous painful experiences doing otherwise even when it seemed okay, that usually just gets people more curious about my numerical age. Indeed now you're probably curious, too! --Please don't be, please focus on other things, as back to the subject:
   

2. ^L4JJOV:  On the positive, I well see the need age-based groups:

1. ^L4JJPE:  Humans of all ages generally prefer to most deeply socialize with others who look about the same age and have the same needs of that age group.
2. ^L4JJR2:  And young adult groups are especially important:
1. ^L4JJTI:  As young adults especially need to network ("it's not what you know but who you know" and "It's not what's happening but who's going") in order find mates & jobs and friends & families of their own in order to get inedpendently established in life.
2. ^L4JJWL:  And young adult groups on a particular topic or mindset are especially important to seriously carry on that topic or mindset to future generations.
3. ^L4JJZA:  Moreover, in UU, young adults, or at least single young adults, mostly-if-not entirely don't exist within all UU congregations I've seen (unlike most other popular religions in the US), so I'm delighted to see UU majorily addressing this, in this case of UU Church of the Younger Fellowship (CYF) --a national congregation of UU young adults.

3.  ^L4JK54:  But on the negative, Mere numerical age criteria hurts; we can do better!

1. ^L4JNQT:  Einstein said "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.", but mere numerical criteria is TOO simple so it hurts.

1. ^L4JK76:  Mere numerical age criteria is unnatural & regularly heavily inaccurate so hurts.

1. ^L4JKAD:  I hate to see anyone excluded from anything based simply on numerical age since age is agreeably an arbitrary measure. Indeed numeric age is VERY arbitrary: remember life has "only" existed on this planet for 3.8 billion years (all but the last 37K) without even knowing what a number was; so for 99.999% of history life operated WITHOUT even knowing what a number was (and all life forms but humans still DO operate without knowing), suggesting conscious numerics are HARDLY fundamental to to the cores of life (in the order of .001%), something social & especially religious groups are *supposed* to be all about. Moreover,
2. ^L4JKCL:  I see the practice of numerical age exclusion (even suggestively) deeply contrary to the fundamental Unitarian Universalist values of inclusion and anti-discrimination.  In fact UU prides & features itself that it includes everyone (even GLBTQ and even every major religion) and is rather a place where one protecting against wrongful prejudice & descrimination. So now would it be okay for UU groups to exclude & discriminate against people based on age, and numerical age at that? Of course not! Therefore any UU group which is n
   
3. Moreover,
   
4. ^L4JKCU:  Membership criteria of (an exact age range and nothing more) is contrary in-the-big-picture to official UUA (UU USA) Young Adult policy of "There is no official, required age range for young adult groups. ... It is not the intention of the UUA to provide a universal, strictly defined age range for youth or young adulthood." rather "we hope Unitarian Universalist congregations and communities will dialogue with different demographic groups" (emails the Office Administrator Deborah Neisel-Sanders 2010.06.09 09:30 speaking for the Director Erik Kesting). Now I say "contrary in-the-big-picture" because...
   
1. ^L4JS8J:   Currently, on the sub-group level, UUA incorrectly DOES allow sub-groups to merely specify exact numerical ages as she adds "Unitarian Universalist congregational polity allows each congregation to create programs that fit their needs at their discretion. Some UUA programs and services are provided specifically for those in certain age ranges..."
1. L4JSNF:  Indeed, UUA is allowing the sub-groups to hash out a solution (as pick "the" right age), similar to federal law being sometimes vague allowing the states to hash out solution)
   
2. ^L4JSAI:  However, on their (top) level, UUA intends NOT "to provide a universal, strictly defined age range for youth or young adulthood"
   
3. ^L4JT4Y:  So why the contradiction?
   
1. ^L4JSRX:   Almost certainly because UUA (very correctly) realize this is a sticky matter where we don't want to arbitrarily be excluding people which would happen for whatever numerical age you picked (if that's all you did)
   
4. ^L4JSSM:  BUT if that's UUAs intent (to avoid arbitrary age based discrimination), then why doesn't UUA just come out and state that prohibition instead of allowing it??!
   
1. ^L4JT83:  Probably because it hasn't occurred to UUA something like that there could exist a uniform membership criteria format for an age-based group which wouldn't exclude anyone supportive, as the one example here, else they probably would have mandated that.
2. ^L4JV4C:  Still, seemingly regardless of the actual reason for this, allowing young-adult sub-groups to exclude people by mere numerical age contradicts much more fundamental UU values which apply to all UUs, so should be stopped.
   



3. 
   

2. ^L4JNXJ:  Secondarily, mere numerical age criteria is also incomplete: as explained above, it cuts out the often-crucial supporters who don't fit that age range so hurts again.

2. ^L4JKEU:  Now I DO see good solution isn't obvious: yes, the problem is tricky.

1. ^L4JO8P:  I see that its hard to see how membership criteria can accomplish all three key goals at once:
   
1. ^L4JO90:  target/gather/focus-on a particular age group (as young adults) and
2. ^L4JOCW: be some some sort of SIMPLE & PRECISE membership criteria that everyone can understand, and
   
3. ^L4JOEJ:  be truly fair and NOT causing arbitrary discrimination problems and include everyone necessary who (seemingly contradictorily) may be notably NOT in the targeted age range.
2. ^L4JOFF:  And I see seemingly because of this challenge, that that 3rd criteria is sadly but typically forsaken.

3. ^L4JKGE:  And, if you're interested, I know of a group (though only one) which has apparently solved all these problems

   (which has pioneered age-range targeted membership criteria which is both simple & precise-enough yet also non-discriminatory and inclusive of anyone (any age) supportive who just follows the other rules). 
   
1. ^L4JUMW:  Just post a comment here asking me and I'll tell you which.
   

4. ^L4JUBZ:  So better criteria exists, and is not hard to do: just copy what they've done!

3. ^L4JQ3H:  Easy things you can do about this...

1. ^L4JQ4O:  If you've experienced or know of a group which uses mere age based criteria or which just does or could result in negative age discrimination, point the leaders of that group to this web page and keep after them to fix these problems.
   
2. ^L4JQ8G:  If you are one of the leaders of such a group, update your group rules & documentation so to avoid the two problems mentioned here. Making it much easier to do this, just copy examples as the one example here. So then when someone asks "How okay is it for a person of ANY age outside the target age range to join & be a member?" your leadership can answer "Any age is fine via..." the exceptions & provisions you anyone supportive (and following the other rules) can be included.
   

 

 

---

^KVA16I:  Document Background & History

1. ^L4JGJT:  2010.06.24pst1448- I DestinyArchitect created & own this document (Writely doc KUJWXV).
   
1. ^KVA3T1:  Created from: copying as directed Writely doc KUJWXV “Revision 1039 -2010.05.18pst1459”
2. ^KVA3VQ:  Motive (at creation): TBA
   
3. ^KVA3WV: Title (at creation): desiring name[Mere numerical age criteria hurts; we can do better]; renamed to title[(Mere numerical age criteria hurts; we can do better)L4JGJT].
4. ^KVA579:  Published-at URL: http:///LoveRules.Info/2010/06/l4jgjt.html
5. ^L2MXTP:  This document copyright: see LoveRules.Info About's LoveRules.Info ownership & access rights for exact details.
   
2. ^L8RWR2: renamed to title[Mere numerical age criteria hurts; we can do better L8RWP2] per the 2 new titling standards.