children are our future?
Jun. 13th, 2003 09:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioIn 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".
Planning ahead
Date: 2003-06-13 09:18 am (UTC)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.
Re: Planning ahead
Date: 2003-06-13 11:15 am (UTC)that should have read 'the ones who volunteer to be list runners'