Mono wiring vs. poly wiring

[Joreth]

Person A) The sky is blue

Person B) What do you mean the sky isn't blue?

Person A) I said the sky IS blue!

Person C) You're totally wrong, the grass is definitely green.

Person A) I said the SKY is BLUE

Person D) Stop attacking me!


*To be clear, Person A in this scenario represents a person in Ceoil's position & all the other people are the types of reactions people in her position get to any statement made online

[redpepper]

thank you Joreth, that is how I was seeing it.

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by Ceoli

This has nothing to do with Mono personally. I could go into all sorts of speculation as to why he would want to cling to this reasoning but it's beside the point and none of my business. This has to do with putting forward ideas that create divides and that have no substantiation whatsoever

Originally Posted by Ceoli

First of all, I post ideas for everyone, not just him. And it had nothing to do with his reaction to The Ethical Slut. It had to do with him suggesting the book Opening Up in the book recommendation thread. You can go back to that thread for reference. It's fine for him to process on his own and I respect that, but when he's making statements about me on the forum in a general discussion area, then discussions will happen.

I'm sorry, but this DOES look personal.

Originally Posted by Ceoli

It is important for me to take this to task because any time we use fictitious reasons to create divides or to try to create different "species" of people we're actually putting whole groups of people down. That flawed reasoning is the very same reasoning that fuels sexism, racism, discrimination against gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered people and all sorts of other acts of discrimination in society.

yes, I find it very personal in fact as I didn't read anything in what anyone said that made me feel like what you say above. I wonder if you are looking for something and are finding a way to lambaste Mono in some way and if so, I wonder why?

[Ceoli]

Originally Posted by redpepper

yes, I find it very personal in fact as I didn't read anything in what anyone said that made me feel like what you say above. I wonder if you are looking for something and are finding a way to lambaste Mono in some way and if so, I wonder why?

I am lambasting an idea that perpetuates prejudice. Anti-oppression work is a passion of mine. The connection is very clear. To attribute one aspect of a person's wiring to another unrelated characteristic tacitly allows such prejudice and perpetuates stereotypes. It's the very same type of reasoning that suggested that white people are superior to black people. It is the very same type of reasoning that made it acceptable for women to not have positions of authority in the work place (being wired as a woman means difficulty in taking authority). It's the same type of reasoning that fuels gay bashing (men who are wired to love other men are sissies, or women who are wired to love other women aren't feminine). It's the same reasoning that perpetuates negative stereotypes about poly people (being wired poly means being sex crazed).

These are all examples of false ties between one aspect of a persons wiring and identity to other characteristics of that person that only have a loose connection at best to that wiring. The two have little to do with each other except what people assume, even if it's an assumption one is making within themselves.

[windmarkbob]

I know I'm new here, but I'm gonna chime in on this one. From a strict *logical* standpoint, Joreth and Ceoli are right in calling a spade a spade or, in this case, a non-sequitor a non-sequitor. (Joreth, you ROCK!).

Weaselbob

[Joreth]

When a person says "my outlook is just a part of my wiring", it typically leads to using one's "nature" as an excuse to either get out of doing something

oh honey, I'm just a guy, you can't expect me to really listen to you or talk about my feelings!

or to categorize people for the purpose of marginalizing them

Of course a woman can't be a CEO, women get all emotional and can't really handle math, it's just their nature

In these two cases, one's "nature" (being male or female) actually has nothing at all to do with their ability to talk about feelings, listen when someone is talking, being emotional at work, or doing math. That's called a "non-sequitor" logical fallacy. It means to connect two unrelated issues. If you want to talk about how difficult it is to pee standing up or whether a person can carry a fetus to term, then their gender would be relevant and actually influence the topic at hand.

So when a person, such as Mono, says "it's part of my monogamous nature that I have this particular worldview", this brings up those two issues. Mono could be dismissing his own responsibility by chalking things up to his "nature" when it really isn't relevant at all to whether or not he views something as "new-agey", or he could be marginalizing an entire category of people.

Or maybe he, personally, isn't *trying* to do either, but making statements like this encourage a general societal acceptance of both marginalizing categories of people and avoiding personal responsibility.

Therefore, Ceoli is attempting to discuss the greater issue that Mono happened to be the person to bring up - it isn't personal because she's discussing the topic. If anyone else happened to make the same argument, Ceoli's stance would be the same. It's not an attack against Mono, it's a position against the argument that he happened to bring up. And that is that one's monogamousness isn't related to one's spiritual outlook, so we should all take care not to make false connections like that.

[Joreth]

Thanks Weaselbob, I've made a study of logical fallacies, and that is what Ceoli was trying to do - point out a logical fallacy.

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by Ceoli

I am lambasting an idea that perpetuates prejudice. Anti-oppression work is a passion of mine. The connection is very clear. To attribute one aspect of a person's wiring to another unrelated characteristic tacitly allows such prejudice and perpetuates stereotypes. It's the very same type of reasoning that suggested that white people are superior to black people. It is the very same type of reasoning that made it acceptable for women to not have positions of authority in the work place (being wired as a woman means difficulty in taking authority). It's the same type of reasoning that fuels gay bashing (men who are wired to love other men are sissies, or women who are wired to love other women aren't feminine). It's the same reasoning that perpetuates negative stereotypes about poly people (being wired poly means being sex crazed).

These are all examples of false ties between one aspect of a persons wiring and identity to other characteristics of that person that only have a loose connection at best to that wiring. The two have little to do with each other except what people assume, even if it's an assumption one is making within themselves.

What you are saying is then is that Mono is creating a stereo type of himself as mono?

[Joreth]

Originally Posted by redpepper

What you are saying is then is that Mono is creating a stereo type of himself as mono?

Woo hoo! Give redpepper a cookie!

Yes, by saying "monogamous people are close-minded" that is a stereotype based on a non-sequitor - 2 unrelated traits.

It is factually false and it is socially marginalizing, even if the person making the stereotype is part of the category he is stereotyping.

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by Joreth

When a person says "my outlook is just a part of my wiring", it typically leads to using one's "nature" as an excuse to either get out of doing something

oh honey, I'm just a guy, you can't expect me to really listen to you or talk about my feelings!

or to categorize people for the purpose of marginalizing them

Of course a woman can't be a CEO, women get all emotional and can't really handle math, it's just their nature

In these two cases, one's "nature" (being male or female) actually has nothing at all to do with their ability to talk about feelings, listen when someone is talking, being emotional at work, or doing math. That's called a "non-sequitor" logical fallacy. It means to connect two unrelated issues. If you want to talk about how difficult it is to pee standing up or whether a person can carry a fetus to term, then their gender would be relevant and actually influence the topic at hand.

So when a person, such as Mono, says "it's part of my monogamous nature that I have this particular worldview", this brings up those two issues. Mono could be dismissing his own responsibility by chalking things up to his "nature" when it really isn't relevant at all to whether or not he views something as "new-agey", or he could be marginalizing an entire category of people.

Or maybe he, personally, isn't *trying* to do either, but making statements like this encourage a general societal acceptance of both marginalizing categories of people and avoiding personal responsibility.

Therefore, Ceoli is attempting to discuss the greater issue that Mono happened to be the person to bring up - it isn't personal because she's discussing the topic. If anyone else happened to make the same argument, Ceoli's stance would be the same. It's not an attack against Mono, it's a position against the argument that he happened to bring up. And that is that one's monogamousness isn't related to one's spiritual outlook, so we should all take care not to make false connections like that.

I'm afraid I see this all as an attack at this point and am again bowing out.... *sigh* carry on.... I get what you are all saying, but I think it's all just mono bashing at this point and you are forgetting that someone is behind this. People are behind this. You are essentially DOING what you are saying above here Joreth at this point. and that is making poly people look bad by bashing mono's that are trying to understand us and trying to accept how their loved ones are.