Re: Depends on what you mean by 'accepted'

Oh? With very few exceptions, human parents and parents in the animal kingdom raise and care for their children until the point where the child can fend for themselves (or, in the case of humans post-19th century, to the point society thinks children can fend for themselves.) There have been very few exceptions to this, and almost always the exceptions have been social experiments that failed.

Very bad example, Lat. What you and many others fail to consider when you make this type of comparison is that all species of mammals except for humans raise their young to become independent of them as quickly as possible. This is decidedly not the case for humans in contemporary society, who artifically force dependence of their young on them for purely emotional reasons long past the point where it's necessary for many of them. Further, human society is sophisticated enough that we could actually find means of helping children of a reasonably cognizant age achieve independence at an earlier age than has been the case historically. Yet we have actually gone backwards in that regard rather than forwards; kids in past eras, with much less productive capacity and technology than our previous post-industrial society, typically became independent of their families much sooner than is the case today.

If there were enough of us to make action worthwhile it would be different, but we (by which I mean self-identified MAPs with an interest in advancing said cause) are such a small minority that any actions we take will be steamrolled by our opposition. Has it been otherwise thus far?

Which is why it's important for such action as Cuteness describes to take place, so those of us who are involved in the advancement of our emanciation can gradually encourage more MAPs to join the movement in large numbers. We have to inspire by example. All movements start out small. I would be willing to bet that MAAs are not nearly as small a minority as the public likes to think.