December 9, 1999

Somewhat recently, we've set this page up and we've already been sent some very pleasant responses. Considering the fact that we have as yet to put out our first flyer or newsletter, that's pretty cool. We've also received some hate mail and you know what? That's cool, too.

One particular "issue" was the 'age bar'. We will not accept members born before 1956. Considering the fact that we're basically a college and grad student group at present, it's not like we were cutting that age range especially narrowly. But, even so, a few wrote to protest. All were in their 50s (by their own account).

So, why would we want a group exclusively for younger Pagans? We might start by saying that some of us would like to have a chance to hang out with people more our own age, in an interesting setting, while we still are our own age. Really, that, by itself, should be reason enough. But there are other issues, one of which is a failure by our elders to accept us as adults (and as full equals), so persistant as to be taken for granted, at present.

Many in the community like to pretend that we are all treated as equals around here. But, ask yourself this. Suppose that a younger person is speaking and an older person turns irate and says that he will get more irate if the younger person continues saying something that the older person doesn't like. What happens if the younger person ignores this and continues? If we are to be honest, instead of being "polite" (read : fashionably docile), we have to admit that the young person will be told to be quiet by people who will be appalled at his "rudeness".

But, suppose that a younger person grows irate at what an older person is saying and demands that the older person cease HIS commentary. Let's remember our experiences honestly, now. Will his demands, in this case, see the same support that the older person's demands would have, if the roles had been reversed? You know darn well that the answer is "no". The younger person will be told that he can leave if he doesn't like what he is hearing.

Does this arrangement seem especially evenhanded to you? As one of our parents might say, let's call a spade a spade. This system we're expected to accept is one under which our elders have unilateral control of the floor of discussion. Oh, yes, we're all equals around here but, it would seem, some of us are more equal than others.

In the Pagan community, some will not even pay lip service to the concept of equality any more, speaking of their role as "tribal elders", who we should be deferential to. There is a word for this. It's called "ageism" and we're tired of it.

So, we've established a place where we can talk among ourselves without our self-appointed "elders" interfering and telling us what we can say to each other or "should" be thinking. One where we won't be preached at because we don't live our life on their terms or center it around their 'causes'. What does it say about some of these people that they are so upset by the thought that some of us might meet in a place, where they would not get to be in control? Especially when there are so many where their agemates are in control and absolutely refuse to share even the least bit of power, or allow any real criticism of their positions?

Some felt that this would lead to a separation of the generations. A strange protest to lodge against a group that urges its membership to belong to other groups as well. But folks, let's wake up. The generations are already being separated in that sense. One of the covens in our neighborhood thinks of itself as a "young" group because it has a few members in their 30s! The Pagans in their teens and twenties aren't mingling with their elders. They're becoming solitaries or leaving Paganism altogether, the vast bulk of the time. Let us add that even among the thirtysomethings, retention isn't looking too good right now. A community whose average age increases by more than a year, each year. is rapidly on its way to disappearing altogether. Just ask a Shaker, if you can find one.

By providing a place where the complaint "I couldn't meet anyone my own age" gets addressed, we help retain some of those whose needs weren't being met. So, the question to be addressed to some of the complaintants is this - are you so obsessed with your desire to be in control that you would be prepared to destroy your own subculture in order to maintain that control? If so, just how well are you serving those gods whose names your actions would serve, to return to that obscurity they have so recently escaped?

Some suggested that if we didn't change our policy, either that we wouldn't see listings or that they'd see to it that we lost the listings we had. How very tolerant and gracious of them. But we doubt it. Our site is already in a variety of webrings and is listed on a number of links pages, including one on the Witches' Voice. We're still waiting to hear from the Metaphysical Gazette, (1) at the time of this writing, but we're assured that Ron is an honest man who would not deny a group a listing, merely over a political difference of opinion. "But your group would exclude Ron, so why shouldn't he exclude you", ran one argument. Because, aside from the fact that as members of other groups, we've not been trying to get him excluded from anything, the fact remains that his not being invited to join our obscure little group in no way impacts the distribution of the Gazette. A refusal on the part of a listings site to mention a group most certainly impacts on the ability of potentially interested people to hear about it. (2) Ethically, the two actions aren't comparable.

But even if this fear was a real one, we would not change the nature of the group in response to the attempt to use the leverage provided by an established position (an unequal power relationship) in a coercive way. What is the point of even starting a new group, if the established ones can use political pressure to mold it into a clone of themselves? But, any such attempt will fail. That we will find a place to advertise is not in serious doubt, for our resolve comes from basic principle and we will not be denied. We will find a place, if we have to make one, ourselves.

As for those of you who shared these "warnings" - for shame. With "elders" like you, who needs fundamentalists? (3)

Let us return to more interesting matters, now.

(1) Not its real name or his. Ron and his group turned out to be career politicians, to whom we'd rather not give added exposure, any more than we have to, especially given their alleged (and apparent) fondness for embezzling charitable contributions.

(2) In fact, they were to indirectly do just that, subtly mangling the link to the Almond Jar in such a way as to create the illusion that the page no longer existed. Our page wasn't able to gain exposure until the Agora was created, and promoted using a different pseudonym than any of the ones that any of us had used on this page. "Censorship by obscurement", in other words.

(3) Of course, worse was to come, showing that our suspicions, if anything, were too mild.