| |
In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes:
> In lugnet.general, Stephen Wroble writes:
> > OK, I'd like to keep writing, but I have to at least LOOK like I'm working
> > today. :)
>
> Haha! I love it.
>
> Now, I really am enjoying this entire thread, but my line of thinking is
> diverging a little (thus the change in subject line). A question comes to
> my mind about how we refer to ourselves within the "community". Why do we
> need to include the word "adult"?
YES!
Man I'm really not getting work done today. Stopped by the post office with
my taxes, visited a local shopkeeper. Posting in this silly thread. Well,
the thread isn't silly, but it's silly that I'm not getting my work done!
> Here in the online community and in those clubs connected to it, we tend to
> refer to ourselves as Adult Fans of Lego (AFOL), and there are a few younger
> members who call themselves Teen Fans of Lego (TFOL), or some variation.
> But are these really the correct terms?
The TFOL designation came out of some clubs imposing hard age limits to
become members. Heated debates around that time (mid-2000) inspired teen
LEGO fans to identify separately. I don't like "TFOL." I think "adult" is
based on maturity, and that very much depends on the individual.
[...]
> My point is that I don't really like
> the use of these terms sometimes.
Yeah, me neither. It's a force of habit for me, though.
> In fact, prior to me becoming an active member of r.t.l. and then Lugnet, I
> never would have used such terms. Not once in the previous 25 years did it
> ever really occur to me that a distinction had to be made as to what age
> group I might be in while hobbying with Lego Toys.
This hits it on the head, IMO.
> I always compared it in
> my mind (and to curious outsiders) to people of all ages who hobby with
> model trains. Now, I have not been to any train hobbyist newsgroups, but I
> don't recall anyone ever using the term "Adult Train Fan" before. Either
> you're a fan, or you are not. Does it matter whether you are adult or not?
> If it does, why?
I think to those who want to have grown-up, mature fellowship surrounding
LEGO, it matters. There's nothing wrong with that. The word adult can carry
a negative connotation, whether it's interpreted as exclusive by non-(legal)
adults, or whether it's interpreted as welcoming sexual, profane, or violent
themes not suitable for children.
I believe the term "Adult LEGO fan" or "adult fan of LEGO" arose from the
desire to make a destinction - *who* is interested in LEGO? To non-LEGO
fans, as an adult, you would just say "I'm a LEGO fan." But, if you say to
them "there are thousands of LEGO fans worldwide," they automatically think
kids. Saying "there are thousands of adult LEGO fans worldwide" gives them a
clearer picture of what you're really talking about.
Unfortunately, the term AFOL I think has created an exclusive identity to
some -- not all -- people who fit the description. I can understand the
desire for mature relationships surrounding the brick, but I don't
understand using the identity to keep others out. There are kids who I love
interacting with regarding LEGO. There are other kids I don't, because of
their personality, demeanor, etc. I play with LEGO with my best friend's
siblings - 5 and 10, where ther are some 14 and 15 year olds I don't want to
be around. Then again, there are other kids in the same age bracket I love
talking to, and I consider friends.
So, making a blanket distinction and saying, "I'm an adult fan, you're a
kid, you can't participate in the hobby at my level" is not cool, IMO. I
take people on an individual basis, regardless of age.
> I believe a similar question once came up before here, although if I recall
> correctly it was about the use of the term "Fan" versus "Hobbyist" or
> "Enthusiast", etc. But I thought I would bring up my thoughts on "Adult"
> since the recent discussion about community made me think and question the
> terms we are using and how I feel about them.
Fan/hobbyist/enthusiast, to me they're the same. Someone who wants to think
harder than I do might draw a distinction, but I won't :-)
LEGO targets kids, but they recognize adult fans and are now seeking to work
with them more and more. In essence, they're involving us in their target
market and bridging the gap. They support train clubs, events like LEGOWORLD
and BricksWest which combine "AFOL" activities with family ones, etc. And
there's new joint efforts coming down the pipe.
I'm definitely on board with their attitude, and the attitude of quite a few
people in this community, that bridging the gap is good. This is not to say
do away with all adult-to-adult, or mature friendships based on LEGO. I
enjoy conversing with other adults about the hobby, and I love building with
other adults without the presence of kids.
> Like Tim did with the word community, I would love to hear ideas and
> thoughts of what others think about the topic of "Adult"...
:-)
Here's more of my take.
I started off this thread saying something like ... different people are in
this hobby because they are motivated differently. Some people really don't
like kids, yet they still play with LEGO. Some people are educators,
coaches, parents, and they are involved with LEGO because it gives them more
opportunities to interact with kids. Some people are inbetween, and some are
none of the above.
We can't expect everyone to embrace kids and open their personal LEGO hobby
(since this is all individuals communing with each other anyways) to them. I
know of people who make you wash your hands before handling their bricks,
and I know of people who are paranoid of UV light hitting their collection!
Much less kids handling it. We can work to break down barriers and to open
peoples' eyes to see more than themselves and their own comfort zones,
though. LEGO is a toy - and if people have to put on blinders to enjoy
playing with a toy, to me that's sad.
I think it's great that you're questioning the use of the word "adult" here.
It's a barrier that needs breaking. Here's a little perspective on LEGO
clubs, then I'll shut up.
I belong to a train club that's adult-focused. Several of our club members
have kids, who participate in the club with their parents. Our general rule
is - kids are welcome, along with parents who are seriously interested in
the hobby for themselves. We don't have a defined age limit, though I've
heard 16 kicked around. The membership as a whole likes to handle membership
on a case-by-case basis.
We're not afraid to exclude on an individual level for the sake of the club
(and the members' sanity). Why? LEGO and model railroading are hobbies that
have all sorts of people, with all sorts of social skills (or lacking all
sorts of social skills). Quite frankly, there are individuals who come to
our train shows who we don't want in the club - be them kids OR adults. But,
there are people who are way under 18 who we would enjoy having in the club.
Setting a hard age limit wouldn't solve the problem that there are
antisocial people above the limit, who won't contribute to the club, or who
will drive the members insane. So, we prefer to be subjective. We treat each
person as an individual, since in our opinion there can't be a hard and fast
standard. I shake my head in bewilderment at those who can't see that.
My .02 (and then some) on the concept of "adult," the LEGO hobby, and the
community.
Thanks so much for bringing this up, Hendo!
-Tim
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
