15 July 2009 @ 07:42 pm
Because it's been a while since I used this soapbox  
ETA: Via nineweaving, Readercon's teen policy is a hotel issue, not a concom one--and a new hotel is being sought out. Which makes me feel better about the whole business.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Nevermind any of the other discussions going on about related matters online ... did I know Readercon had an actively teen-unfriendly membership policy? One that requires 14-year-olds to be labeled "ReaderKids" and stay in a parent's shadow, and that ghettoizes even 17-year-olds with a special "ReaderTeen" membership designation?

Do other cons do this, too? If so, no wonder teens are choosing to gather places other than traditional cons, and no wonder fandom is greying to the point that I'm on its youngish end.

We're a genre made up of people who were all generally once bright, precocious, passionate, intelligent teenagers. As such, we should truly know better--we should remember better--and should have a lot more respect for those who are there now.

I don't want to be protected and kept apart from teens at the cons I go to. I want to meet them as equals so that we can engage in conversations together, the same as with everyone else. That equal-footing thing is one of the things our genre always struck me as doing well, both in our stories and outside of them.

There are enough walls between teens and adults in the everyday world--genre fiction, in my experience, in one of the things that best tears these walls down, at least sometimes. We should be embracing that, not putting new walls up instead.

(Link found via shadesong's post on welcoming teens to cons rather than alienating them.)
 
 
( Read 55 commentsLeave a comment )
Janni Lee Simnerjanni on July 16th, 2009 01:52 pm (UTC)
Oh, I don't doubt there were reasons, and that there were issues that it seemed a good solution too, or was done with good intentions, at all.

But it still seems that for any other groups of humans, we'd punish the ones who committed the crime, and not everyone who fit into that demographic. We only do this for teens.

As it is, I'm tired of going to cons that get older and older (and have less and less energy as a result). Even at cons that welcome teens attendance is way down, and the cons are the lesser for it--and this seems a policy that, whatever its intention, can only encourage more of same.
Sherwood Smithsartorias on July 16th, 2009 02:11 pm (UTC)
I agree. I much, MUCH prefer seeing a goodly variety of ages, faces, everything.

But for the other . . . usually a disruptive adult is singled out--they don't drag others into acting out, and then comes the "But he said she said!" When adults who don't have kids see kids not contributing, but misbehaving (because otherwise kids are invisible, right?) the instinct is, "Get rid of the kids. Let them do kid things. This con isn't for kids."

Except . . . except . . . where do they think fans are going to come from when the rest of us old fogies start crumping?