![[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
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