That was very ageist indeed. It was like an inverted
   romanticized view of the onset of puberty.. I don't like things
   that degrade youth nor do I like things that over-romanticize
   youth. I don't really even there being a category of youth that
   sets them aside because of something that can't be helped (one's
   age) - but I prefer people to be seen as people, not groupings
   with exaggerated qualities. The writer seemed to be describing
   his view of his own son and his memories of himself at that
   time. It's bad enough if were to characterize one of his kids
   like that (he can describe himself like that all he wants to)
   but to project it to an entire age group? Ageist? Definitely.
   Even if he specifically referred to his son or both sons, he's
   still a hater. "Also, I was once one of them." No, James Faulk,
   you were yourself. == 2nd half of the article was fine. He can
   talk about himself all he wants, however he wants. But the first
   half, in a fair society, wouldn't be printable in a common
   publication. But we don't live in a fair society not yet. It's
   as bad as generalizations of the elderly. In both cases, neither
   can defend themselves. Neither can help being the age they are,
   just like you can't help being the age you are, just like I
   can't help being the age I am. It's happenstance when we're
   born. Ugh, I hate stereotyping. ==