View Single Post
Old 01-05-2010, 10:32 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,510

I specifically said earlier in this thread that I certainly cannot understand the EXPERIENCE of having a child. I was speaking to the issues that surround having a child and the presumption that any of us who are looking at this from outside are ignorant of such issues. It has been repeatedly acknowledged in this thread that having a child to protect when dealing with all these issues is incredibly important. And while it may not be right for you as a parent to be all activist about it, I can certainly point to other parents for whom it was very right to be an activist, as a way to protect their children. But it has been REPEATEDLY said in this that BOTH choices are valid.
The impression I'm getting is that in fact both aren't accepted as valid.
But more then that I get the impression that because I'm prioritizing the safety of my children first-there is an assumption that I am not an activist and that in fact I am "leaving my peers in the dust" along with the implied "threat" that because of this choice-those same peers will leave me hanging when I "need" them.

In truth-I am very active in trying to stop all sorts of prejudice-but I do it with the priority of my children's safety in the forefront, not as a secondary priority...

I apologize if speaking of the effect that your decisions have on others is lecturing. I don't think anyone was speaking about questioning that what you're doing is best for your children.
No I wasn't getting that impression. I was more getting the impression that I am doing it in a way that doesn't take into consideration minimizing damage to others simultaneously. Almost the assumption that I'm not educated or aware of the risks involved to others or don't give a shit about others, when in fact that's not true. (not from you per se either).

I will say, however, that as a teacher who has worked directly with social services in more than a few occasions, there certainly ARE times when a parent needs to be questioned for the sake of the well being of the child. Nobody was suggesting this in any of the cases in this thread.
No argument from this peanut. If social services had beendoing their job worth a crap they would have stepped in for my ss when his mom was wrecking cars (drunk) with him in it, or when she was leaving him in cars at bars, forgetting about him and running off with her dealers. But despite catching this happening-they let it go, "because he had other family who could take him"-even though we couldn't because the court deemed her reasonable for 50/50 custody if social services didn't remove him from her care (rolling eyes)-so yes there are DEFINATELY lots of times they need to step in. I could tell you horror stories of neighbors whose children were tied out to fences and locked in coffins without social services stepping in in spite of reports.

Nobody was suggesting that you HAVE to fight or be activists or even openly use the specific word poly. All I've been addressing is that certain choices (for whatever VALID reasons they are made) further contribute to prejudices that are being experienced by others.
My point I suppose is that those choices CAN further contribute to prejudices-but they don't have to. By assuming that they DO, there is an assumption that the person choosing not to use that specific word is actively promoting AVOIDING the word-which I don't do either.
In fact with responsible communication its VERY possible to promote awareness, reduce confusion and reduce prejudice towards people who do use that term as a self-identifier-without ever using that word in the conversation.

Clearly our viewpoints are causing us to see different attitudes then. I don't see this attitude you describe. I do, however see an attitude that people who choose to be activists or even openly sex-positive are somehow couched in theory and aren't in touch with the day to day realities of having a poly family.
I don't think that those two things have anything to do with one another. Someone can be sex-positive or sex-negative and not be in touch with day to day realities of having a poly family.
I think I'm confused about what you mean here...

However, the prejudice is certainly very real. I don't see finding a solution that helps EVERYONE if we continue to either ignore this prejudice or say that prejudice is ok as long as there's a kid to protect.
I agree-but I don't think I ever said anything to even SUGGEST that I thought prejudice was ok as long as there are children to protect. I don't feel that way-I do feel that you can't make fighting prejudice as specific way more important than keeping your child safe. You have to be more creative and imaginitive-so that you can fight prejudice without endangering the child more than necessary. But that doesn't mean not fighting it.

Like a sniper-or like Schindler or like "special forces" who can't share their whereabouts/missions etc who keep a low profile-they often find and bring home the "key's" that allow the front line guys to win the war, or they manage to safely remove endangered people from within the "enemy zone" or they silently, slealthily "knock off" the enemy one person at a time...

I honestly don't think people who are choosing not to take up arms are saying prejudice is ok and as I and others have said repeatedly in this thread, it's a VALID CHOICE to not take up arms. But it is completely fair to question the active rejection of other people's poly life by choosing to disassociate and to discuss the prejudice that produces.
But where have I rejected someone else's poly life?
And how has anything I said produced prejudice against other poly people (or anyone else for that matter)?

If she chooses not to self-identify as Puerto Rican because she doesn't feel that identity, then that's definitely a valid choice for her. If she chooses to not identify as Puerto Rican because lots of Puerto Ricans are drug dealers or in gangs and she doesn't want to be seen with that, then I have several Puerto Rican friends that would have something to say about that. (I'm not saying that this is what she's doing, I'm just illustrating the analogy)
It's not my impression that either of those (or the points they serve to illustrate) are her reason.
I think it's more along the lines of-Puerto Rican doesn't truly define who she is. It's only a PART of who she is and it's simply not true that she is ONLY that part. So she doesn't choose to use it.
She certainly doesn't deny it either. She desperately wants to go to Puerto Rico, see where her family is from. She learned Spanish so she could communicate with her family from there more easily and she is proud of her heritage.

But more then that pride for her heritage, she's proud of HERSELF and wants to be identified as herself-an individual, not a body of people from an island (or anywhere else).

The thing is, both polyamory and Christianity have pretty clear definitions. We as a society for whatever reason have decided to merge EXAMPLES of the definition with the actual DEFINITION itself. We also seem to think that because lots of people misunderstand the definition, that there isn't a clear one. The same thing happened with the word polygamy. I prefer to dispel the misunderstanding rather than contribute to it by saying that the word doesn't apply to me because of the misunderstandings of the word, not the actual word itself.
A word exists only to convey a concept or thought from one person to the other. If the two people don't share an understanding of what the word means-then it's a waste of space in the conversation because the concept is not communicated using that word.
I'm all for dispelling misunderstanding-but not by creating it first.
No one I have met has even HEARD the word polyamory. They don't identify it WITH anything-they would have to look online to find a definition. But the definitions online-well they are all different. So that wouldn't clear things up for them.
Christianity is similar in that every church defines it a little differently.
It makes more sense to me to define what I am, what I have if someone asks.
I can (and do) work towards greater acceptance ALL of the time, but I don't talk about my love life ALL of the time... So there are MANY opportunities for me to help alleviate prejudice and very few of them include anything to do with my use of that word specifically.

The thing is, choosing not to use the specific word ISN'T the issue. It's choosing to take on the same assumptions around that word that most of the non poly world takes on that causes problems for everyone.
Again-don't see where I've done this.. Please help me out.
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote