![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
children are our future?
In the SCA, for example, where I hear this phrase a lot, children aren't our future: recruitment is. College kids are the best candidates for "our future", if we have to choose a demographic target. Kids who are dragged along to SCA events by their parents won't necessarily stick around when they're old enough to stay home on their own. On the other hand, lots of people who see us in parks and the like get curious and turn into active, contributing members of the organization.
Any social organization will ultimately stand or fall based on how interesting it is to adults. Because there's no obligation to participate, and kids turn into adults. So while you certainly don't want to drive away families, no social organization is ultimately well-served by the "children over adults" mentality. Don't place roadblocks, of course, but don't revolve around children either.
(Aside: In the case of the SCA, the best thing we could do would be to find ways to integrate children into regular activities. Special children's activities, off in a separate room somewhere, are exactly the wrong approach. The kids are isolated from the organization instead of becoming part of it. I'd bet those kids are more likely to bolt when they can, too. Of course, there's nothing wrong with parents forming a babysitting cooperative for the younger kids, but that should really be up to the parents, not the officers of the organization. And, of course, children who participate in the general activities will be expected to behave, and some parents have trouble making that happen but refuse to remove the kids. So I'm talking about an ideal here.)
People sometimes say "children are our future" in religious contexts, and while it's more justified there (there is generally more of an obligation to participate, at least), I still don't think children's interests automatically trump everyone else's. Balance is important, both on its own merit and for enlightened self-interest: if you drive away the single people and young couples before they have kids, those kids won't become part of your congregation later. So if children are our future, then more care of the potential producers of said children is called for.
On a broader societal level... well of course in one sense children are "our future", in that if no more kids were born the race would die out in 100 years. But mere children aren't enough; educated, functioning children are our future. Kids that aren't cared for appropriately are a net loss, not a net gain. And there are an awful lot of such kids around already. One of the best things we as a society could do would be to make birth control freely available to all who seek it, worldwide. It's a pity the far right doesn't see it that way; they seem to have enough power to stomp on aid toward that end.
Within my lifetime I have seen a sharp increase in what I call the "cult of the child". This is the attitude that children can do no wrong, that children should be allowed to behave badly because it's part of their "actualization" or some such, and that society owes parents. Parents with this attitude do a major disservice to all parents, and if I were a well-behaved parent I'd want to slap these folks upside the head. One otherwise-intelligent friend even told me that because he has kids and I don't, he's contributing to society and I'm not. After all, he says, when I'm old and in a nursing home I'm going to need nurses and cooks and whatnot to take care of me, and he's producing that. Hmpf. In addition to all the logical flaws in that statement, the whole thing is downright arrogant. Having kids isn't the only way to provide for one's future. And if you aren't going to regulate their behavior, having kids does harm to the rest of us.
I think people who want kids (and can care for them) should have them. While I could wish for more of a decline in the rate of growth of world population -- I'm not excited to see another doubling in my lifetime -- I don't agree with the folks who apparently want everyone to stop having kids at all. That's just silly.
But I also think that people who don't want kids should be left in peace, not demeaned or pressed into service or ostracized because "family-friendly" has turned into "childless-hostile".
no subject
...and what the hell does he think guarantees that his children will be that for him? Last I checked, it's not in the contract.
If anyone tells you that they are contributing to the world and you are not because they managed to perform a bodily function, they are a complete f-ing moron who needs to be kicked hard in someplace soft.
Overall, amen. You have managed to put my incoherent babbling into something solid. I thoroughly agree.
no subject
That's one of those logical flaws I alluded to, yes. :-) For all we know, his kids will grow up to be drug-dealing juvenile delinquents. Probably not, but we can't say with certainty that they won't, now can we?
no subject
no subject
Yes! When I was a child, 7 years old or thereabouts, I was able to help in the kitchen for church dinners. Did I carry big platters of meat to the tables? No, I carried juice and fruit cups and pie slices. When I got older, I worked at the buffet line, and in the dish room. Could my parents have sent me to the Children's Nursery? Sure. Or found a babysitter for me? Sure. But I was much happier pattering in and out of the kitchen with my little tray with six cranapple juices on it. I was helping, and the adults thanked me.
Segregated activities, or babysitting masquerading as such, can never feel like anything else. Participating as a junior, but valued, member of the organization is what it's all about.
no subject
no subject
I love you
I'm in total agreement with you here.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with parents forming a babysitting cooperative for the younger kids, but that should really be up to the parents, not the officers of the organization.
Does your kingdom have a 'Minister of Minors' office? We have them here and are lucky enough to have the kingdom officer in our canton. I'm tired of feeling like I have to volunteer for a shift watching the kids. I don't have any, nor do I like them (at least until they reach an intelligible age and none of the locals are).
One of the best things we as a society could do would be to make birth control freely available to all who seek it, worldwide.
As long as getting pregnant is less effort than not getting pregnant, I think we'll have childrend that are uncared for, and that's a shame. I just don't see how to change basic human biology on such a large scale.
But I also think that people who don't want kids should be left in peace, not demeaned or pressed into service or ostracized because "family-friendly" has turned into "childless-hostile".
Exactly.
Thank you.
no subject
As a parent who raises my children to behave, I do. Actually, at first I usually want to smack the child upside the head, but then I realise that their parents need it more.
I think children are our future (gag!), but what sort of future it is, is dependant on the parents of today... it's not automatically a good thing.
What IS SCA, anyway?
no subject
honestly, i'm afraid to know anyway. mostly because if it's someone that I otherwise respect, it would be sad.
no gossip actually wanted...more idle curiosity :-)
SCA
The goofy-sounding name was consed up in a hurry by one of the founders when she went to rent a park for a gathering and they needed an organization name. It was Berkeley in the 60s; what can I say? :-)
See this web site for more info.
no subject
And that's my opinion on the matter in a nutshell. I don't have anything against kids, I have something against parents.
Admittedly as a population, not as individuals. I know some nice parents, just like I know some nice Americans, but as a whole I don't like the US as a country. But that's a whole nother argument.
K.
Planning ahead
I do say that children are our future in a religious sense, because in the current secular world, the percentage of people who come as adults to religion is vastly smaller than the percentage of people who grow up with faith as a part of their lives and continue to keep it (though maybe not the same beliefs or sects).
In religious terms, children must be educated and brought up to understand what we are doing and *why* we're doing it, or they have no basis for decision later. Including them and making the act of worship meaningful is also important. However, this should never occur at the expense of others and should always accommodate their ability to handle the experience.
In the SCA, I feel that many of the parents who continually agitate for more emphasis on children's activities are looking for ways to get rid of their kids so they can socialize or whatever. (How's that coming from a child-lover?) These parents want the rest of us to watch their children so that they don't have to.
The best of the parents I am friends with want reasonable accommodations (such as a quiet place for naps or nursing) if possible, and they ask for a little patience and understanding rather than blanket disapproval of their kids, because it is impossible to keep the rugrats perfect 24/7. They also know it is *their* responsibility to bring activities, food, and if necessary, a quick exit. Interestingly enough, these same parents have spawned the helpful children - the ones who run lists, serve feast, and go to the beginner level classes that interest them.
One way I really know a good parent is that they thank me for bringing their misbehaving child to them instead of getting mad that I've disciplined their beastly darling.
I could go at length into what I would like to see the SCA doing in terms of recruitment, but you would be bored, if you're not already.
no subject
My parents made it clear that if I behaved I could be with the adults and if I didn't I would be banished to babysitting, kids' activities (if present), or home. It seemed to work.
no subject
I'm suddenly tempted to ironically quote a joke about "unskilled labor".
no subject
Re: Planning ahead
that should have read 'the ones who volunteer to be list runners'
no subject
You damned will SHOULD try to teach your kids how to be polite and how to behave.
And you should remove them from where they are if they're not doing that.
There is NO excuse for a parent to let the child disrupt things. None.
no subject
(I also wish that more parents would react with good manners when someone else has to discipline their kid or intervene to prevent harm. Sadly, you can't count on this.)
no subject
My fervent wish for other parents is that they watch their own children -- all of them. At an event four or five years ago, someone brought a child to us who was soaked to the skin and shivering (the event was in May, at a camp on a lake). She was about four, and could only tell us her first name. We tracked down her father, who was striking his camp -- apparently her mother was shooting the archery point, and the little girl was supposed to be in the care of her younger brother, who was all of eight years old. I had to be restrained from dressing the father down, but at least when we told him what happened, he took off running for the gate, where his daughter was.
That same event, the day before, I scooped another child off the list field -- her mother was chatting and she toddled off at toddler light-speed. Luckily the melee was towards the middle of the field, but they move fast! This is why I am all for putting toddlers on leashes. If they won't hold your hand and they aren't in a stroller or being held, they need to be tethered somehow, or you'll lose them. They move quick.
I don't know yet if I want kids, but if I have them, rest assured they *will* be taught manners.
no subject
A nit:
The Children are our future no matter what, it's just that poorly reared children create a sucky and possibly self-destructing future. :)
One of the best things we as a society could do would be to make birth control freely available to all who seek it, worldwide. It's a pity the far right doesn't see it that way; they seem to have enough power to stomp on aid toward that end.
Why do you implicitly assume that only (or primarily) those people who would be bad parents would take advantage of birth control? At best this would merely reduce the total number of children while keeping the bad/good ratio the same, but more likely in my opinion is that those parents who are sufficiently irresponsible so as to poorly rear children will also be sufficiently irresponsible and un-self-aware as to decide to have children in the first place, while those who would do a good job may hold off because they can or will not make the commitment that _they_ realize it requires. The obvious solution to this is a parenting regulation system of some sort that causes only responsible parents to be parents. That could get really authoritarian really quickly.
Re - the vast right-wing conspiracy:
It seems to me that the other half of the system that disapproves of birth control compels parents to raise their children morally and correctly, but everyone forgets about this and no one likes to legislate on it, and if they did it could also get really authoritarian really quickly.
Compelling all parents to be responsible has theoretically the same end result as limiting parents to the set of those that are naturally responsible, and we could probably be here all day discussing the relative merits of each system. :)
no subject
I didn't mean to imply that. Freely-available birth control won't solve the problem of bad parenting, but it would help one specific set of bad parents: those who know they aren't ready but are in situations -- whether religious, societal, or economic -- that preclude effective birth control, but are still going to have sex.
I also meant to write "and abortion" in this statement.
Re: I love you
Thanks. :-)
Does your kingdom have a 'Minister of Minors' office?
Yup. There's been talk of requiring it for baronies here, but I don't think that has actually happened. (We have insistent proponents of the idea locally, so our barony has that office.)
I'm tired of feeling like I have to volunteer for a shift watching the kids.
Just say no. You don't have to volunteer in every kitchen, at every gate, on every setup crew, and so on either. Child care is no different, and people who try to pressure people into volunteering for their pet projects miss the point that they are driving some people away from volunteering at events at all.
no subject
Freely available birth control only helps that last group, really--for the other two, it is necessary to convert them or change their worldview before they will take advantage of it even were it to become available.
no subject
Some comments, from the perspective of one who is not a parent yet but wants to be someday (pending emotional and financial readiness), and who agrees with most of what you've said.
True enough, but at least they've been exposed and can make their own decision when they're old enough. An example from my personal experience: my parents have been enthusiastic contra dancers since before I was born. They dragged me to dances starting as far back as I can remember, and though I quickly learned how to dance, I generally did not enjoy it. Until I was about 11 years old and something changed. To this day I don't know what, but one day I just started really enjoying contra dancing -- and it has stayed that way (and in fact, I make much of my income now as a musician for contra dances).
My point: you never know what the kids will or will not like, but it's nice to provide a friendly environment for them to be exposed to their parents' interests. For that reason (and several others), I don't agree that parents dragging kids to SCA events is a lost cause -- they won't necessarily stick around, but they won't necessarily bolt either. At this point, I think there are enough three-generation SCA families to support this view.
Not entirely true (even assuming you meant to restrict the discussion only to organizations primarily serving adults). Yes, adults need to be kept interested. But responsible parents will find their participation in an organization limited if such participation is incompatible with their children.
Not if those activities are designed with the ultimate goal of preparing the children to integrate into the adult activities. Then it can help kids get their bearings in a mostly adult environment that could otherwise perhaps be somewhat intimidating. This is really no different from the principle of having special workshops to get newcomers up to speed.
no subject
I agree. We should be providing a friendly environment for everyone (save unsalvagable behavior problems, of which there are very few in the world) who wants to try us out.
I don't agree that parents dragging kids to SCA events is a lost cause
I didn't mean to imply that it's a lost cause; just that it's neither necessary nor sufficient, so the line of argument that goes "we have to cater to kids at the expense of adults because kids are the SCA's future" is flawed. (Locally, the parents of a real hellion like to make that argument.)
Some kids grow up in the SCA and truly become part of it. Our incoming baron and one of my apprentices are two local cases. I think it's worth noting that when they were growing up we let them participate at their own level of ability, without singling them out. They served feasts, helped set up and clean up halls, helped with kitchen tasks not involving knives or fire, acted as pages for royalty, acted as gophers on the list field, and all sorts of other stuff. I don't see as many children doing things like that today, and I wonder if having a separate track of children's activities is contributing to that. My sample is too small to know.
Not if those activities are designed with the ultimate goal of preparing the children to integrate into the adult activities.
Do you happen to have any practical advice on how to do that? We don't really have separate newcomers' activities either; we try to mentor them and pay attention to them, of course, but nothing organized. Well, sometimes a beginners' sewing workshop to get those first few pieces of garb, but that's really an adult (or at least teen) activity.
no subject
For newcomers'/children's classes, I guess I was thinking of workshops on "universals" of SCA life -- a quick overview of the general structure of the Society, intro to ranks (no need to go into all the alphabet soup, just basics like the difference between a Lord and a Duchess). Basic garb-making would actually work better than you might suppose, or so I've been told -- many children become reasonably proficient in sewing at a surprisingly early age, and you don't need all that much skill to make simple garb (I am living proof of that fact :) ). However, for the most part, it probably makes more sense to lump the kids in with the adult newcomers -- it's just that there are often more child than adult newcomers around.
It happens that Concordia's Chancellor Minor (Aislinn Cúl Dualach), in addition to discharging that office in what appears to be exemplary fashion, is a close friend of mine. I will bring this discussion to her attention and see if she has anything to add. I suspect her comments could be most enlightening for us all.
no subject
Yeah, me too. :-) My concern here was that if I don't know anything about a specific kid, I'd be wary of handing him sharp objects, especially power-driven sharp objects (sewing machines). Some kids are fine with it and some aren't. Of course, if a parent is present that's different.
However, for the most part, it probably makes more sense to lump the kids in with the adult newcomers -- it's just that there are often more child than adult newcomers around.
Then there'll be more children than adults in the classes; that's ok.
If it's an "intro to X" class, we should just say that. If some of the students are 8 and some are 80, that's fine. (If you get a 3-year-old, you can't help him anyway and that's not your problem.) By trying to classify it as either a children's class or a newcomers' class, you implicitly tell the people in the other category that this otherwise-appropriate class isn't meant for them, which means you have to do it twice. It's an awfully brave newcomer who'll ask if he can go to the childrens' class on such-and-such because he doesn't know that stuff either.
There are some areas where you'd teach children differently than you'd teach adults. Hands-on cooking comes to mind; you can assume that the adults know basic kitchen safety already, but kids might not.
I suspect her comments could be most enlightening for us all.
I look forward to them. My journal permits anonymous posts, so she can respond here if she likes even if she doesn't have an account.
Chancellor of Minor
(Anonymous) 2003-06-18 04:06 pm (UTC)(link)Just recently Concordia had our large camping event: The Wars of the Roses. This event is different from a normal day event. I have activities runnning from 10:00am to about 4:30pm. We made castles out of cardboard, fried bread dough, did candle dipping, coloring, a tug- of-war and various forms of tag that are period, story time and banner making. In banner making the children recieved a felt square and they decorated it. At the same time we created a large banner on felt that we covered with handprints and presented to the King and Queen at court. That was not only extreemly succesful, but was the most fun to do. The only draw back was that it hadn't dried in time for court... the weather was something awful this year!
In general I try to provide activities that the children will enjoy and if they aren't exactly period, they are cetainly period flavoured. That being one of my personal goals, to try and be more period. For example, coloring time included photocopies of period images from dover coloring books, the out door games definitly period, and the banner making involved the children in court.
At normal day events I don't provide activities for so long a time. However I do have certain things I try to have at every event, like coloring sheets, and crayons, a collection of board games that are period such as chess, backgammon and alquirks and a children's room, if available. The benifit of a room specifically for kids is that they have a place to go that is there own, where they are hopefully not bored. At one recent event we had the use of a schools play room and the kids had a ball playing then wandering into the event, and wandering back.
I am trying to gather a Baronial collectiion of toys as well, based on that experience. I am looking for period toys, hopefully at pennsic and modern ones both. My vision is that i have a place for kids to go so that they can enjoy themselves, while still enjoying the event.
On that note I would like to add my comments about the parents. At the recent camping events I usually had at least 2-3 parents helping me out (aside from my assistants) This made all the difference in the world. Having the parents participate is wonderful. As Chancellor of Minor I am here to provide something for your children to do, not to be a babysitter. I encourage and welcome all parents to join in these activities. I also think that the said activites are lots of fun! I wouldn't want to do this otherwise. As it happens, I don't have any children, but I have always enjoyed working with them and have done youth theatre and summer camp for many years.
And finally, as for any problems that people have at events with activities or children's rooms or whatnot, I am a firm believer in the theory that there are no bad kids, just bad parents. If you have a problem with a child at an event find the parent, and make it their problem. I'm not here to disipline your children, just make sure they have fun!
-Aislinn