Originally Posted by Ceoli
I don't think anyone here is expecting everyone to be an activist. However, when people make decisions in which prejudice can be perceived from it, it's perfectly reasonable to address it and get to the bottom of it. That is not belittling any point of view. However, at the risk of repeating myself, assuming that those without children are ignorant of the issues that surround the dynamics of a child does feel belittling.
I hope this comes out right-but if it doesn't-please work with me patiently.
I can comprehend intellectually the way it feels to have my leg amputated, but unless my leg is ACTUALLY amputated-it's only conceptual.
While it's GOOD for me to work on conceptual understanding of things I don't personally experience, it's unfair to those truly suffering the experience and somewhat egotistical for me to tell someone I DO understand what they experience if I in fact haven't ever been through their situation.
EVEN if I have been through having my leg amputated, I STILL don't know exactly what THEY are going through-because I am not them. I don't have their mind, their life experience etc and therefore I don't feel exactly what they feel.
When someone with no children lectures me on my decision making-that to me is belittling. They are assuming that they know what is best in my situation, despite having no experience in my situation.
Further that to someone who doesn't even KNOW me OR my children-and it comes across as highly arrogant and presumptive.
When that is then furthered by them suggesting that I don't do enough in the way of fighting against prejudice simply because I don't personally claim a specified term to describe my situation-that leaves me disgusted.
WHY is it wrong for me to not describe myself as poly if I AM openly letting people know that I DO have a husband and boyfriend, that we DO live together and raise our children together AND I am actively out there fighting against prejudice for ALL groups that I can in our area AND I have openly supported and befriended people in those groups, including transexual, bi, gay, lesbian, black, AK native etc?
I do understand the concept that refusing to take a name as something can promote prejudice. BUT the truth is that taking a name for oneself can do the same. When a person identifies as one thing-they can promote other people's already prejudice views on anything BUT that thing.
(as in "see even so and so is blah blah blah" that proves that anything else is shit")
It is ridiculous to me that there is more focus on making everyone be NAMED the same thing-when we aren't all the same, then focusing on making ALL DIFFERENT PEOPLE under ANY NAME equal...
AND as GS said-a war isn't fought ONLY with Marines who go out in front shooting and screaming to their deaths. There's a lot of war done from behind the scenes.
When I was training to go into the military-I trained to be a sniper.. ironically what I hear in this thread (and across the whole forum recently) is that a sniper is useless. In fact oft times a sniper saves the asses of the troops stomping through the woods noisily behind him/her. Just because the sniper doesn't make as much noise-does NOT minimize their importance NOR does it mean that they aren't 100% involved and taking a huge risk for the war.
There seems to be an attitude on here that if we aren't all Marines, we're the enemy. Besides raising my eyebrow-that offends me as I know it's not true.
That doesn't even touch on the fact that in truth we don't personally know each other-so we can't really say that any one person isnt actually a "marine on special duty".. ...
Geez-and that brings in the whole "special ops" who can't TELL ANYONE who/what/where/when they are! Those guys don't count either? The ones who have to keep a REALLY f'ing low profile in order to infiltrate the "enemy camp" and fight the battle "from the enemy's side" by sending back useful info to the troops????