My poly isn't your poly - so what?

[Ceoli]

Originally Posted by LovingRadiance

ceoli-I was responding and my whole system crashed. SOOOOO I'm starting over.
Didn't want you to think I ran off pissed or whatever.
(ok-I was pissed-but at the computer, not you!)

That sucks!!

I'll be of pretty soon but will be back later this evening. Looking forward to your response.

[LovingRadiance]

[QUOTE=Ceoli;18709]

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.

[LovingRadiance]

Just the other day, someone told me that they couldn't be poly because they're not promiscuous. I spent some time explaining that being promiscuous isn't the definition of what it is to be poly. Sure there could be poly people who are promiscuous and proud of it. (There are lots of monogamous people who are as well). But I won't say that I'm not one of THEM because I'm not promiscuous. I'm just going to say that we both practice it a different way.

Great way to handle it. Personally-I've never encountered that type of conversation. Mostly because of where I live. It's a completely different environment and attitude here. I agree with your methodology-I don't DENY being poly-I just don't offer the word as decription to people who don't understand it anyway.

I wonder how many words that describe identity truly have an agreed upon meaning across cultures.

At this point I'm not trying to do much "across cultures". Alaska is so isolated, it's a matter of effecting people in this culture. And using words that have an agreed upon meaning is the only way to have a productive conversation. Otherwise its' like speaking French to a Russian. Why bother? Better in my mind to speak to someone in the language they already speak and work towards communication which will allow you to understand one another-THEN work to teach them your language.

My issue is-that if there isn't an agreed upon language FOR polyamorists-then what would you teach AFTER you reach understanding one another?

By saying I love two men in a secure healthy loving relationship but I don't identify as poly because I'm not promiscuous like those poly people (this is just an example) I am promoting the idea that identifying as poly means being promiscuous. In such, I'm actively working against the clear definition that already exists.

In my mind that would be flat rude. Among other things including promoting incorrect assumptions, biases and prejudices.
Not something that would ever come out of my mouth.
THAT my friend is exactly what got me riled up!

I feel like that was exactly what I was being told I WAS doing in real life simply because I said I don't choose to use the word polyamory as a self-identifier.
But it's NOT what I would do, have done or ever will do. I would never make such a statement because it is in and of itself prejudiced.


So maybe the answer lies in recognizing that just because I have a different FIRST priority doesn't mean I don't still hold myself to a high level or responsibility to my "peers".
Instead of assuming the worst case scenario-just saying "have you considered how this might/could promote prejudice" and "if so what are your thoughts on how to avoid that while still upholding your principles on protecting your children as a first priority".

Opposed to telling me that my choice to protect my children first WILL promote prejudice????

[Ceoli]

Originally Posted by LovingRadiance

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.

I'm not sure where you get the perception that people are assuming that you're not an activist from. Nobody was saying that you weren't an activist or anything like that to my knowledge. This piece of the conversation started when a specific person said that they chose to not identify as poly because of certain lifestyle choices of other poly people that they didn't agree with. All I was saying is that equating poly with those lifestyle choices is an assumption made about poly and an inaccurate one. To make a decision based upon an inaccurate assumption does nothing to undo that assumption as it's held by the larger society. You came into this after that was addressed.

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...

And that's awesome. I love and respect my friends who do the same.

Answering to the rest of this would just have me repeating myself. I'm not even sure where this whole "You have to be an activist" came into this. Can you please provide me with an example of where one of us said or implied something to that effect in this thread?

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by Ravenesque

Others here either see sex negatively or have decided to accept mainstream sex-negativity.

I'm sorry, I don't understand who you are directing this too, me? and what you mean by this.... could you please clarify for us? Perhaps a definition of sex positive and negative? Your version?

Originally Posted by Ravenesque

It's been admitted here that some are willing to cut sex out of polyamory if it will put them in a positive or favorable light for their would be persecutors. They do this to save their children. Others have qualified this decision as being "good" parents. I don't qualify it as positive or the makings of a good parent. It is simply what it is. A choice made.

you are right, it is a choice. Did you hear when I said that I didn't like making that choice? Just wondering, cause I feel a little like you are telling me I am not a good parent. Are you directing this towards me? If you aren't, perhaps you could use a different way of stating your opinion that doesn't come across as judgmental?

Originally Posted by Ravenesque

Change has never happened quietly or by acquiescing to oppression. Any identity that you can put ahead of "rights" has had battles whether they were battles of philosophy or battles where blood ran in the streets. Some speak of ideals here with such contempt all while hiding from the reality. Clinging to *gasp* an ideal that if you just keep your heads down and not associate with "those people," not draw too much attention to yourselves, it will be ok. Patting each other on the back as if modeling that behavior is showing children independence and how to stand up for their rights as people.

This seems very vague to me and again feels like it is in some way directed at me. Do you think I am clinging to ideals? Do you think I am hiding from reality? Do you think I am not associating with people as a way of hiding? to make it okay? If so, how? I don't get where you are getting this from.... I take this all personally and perhaps that is not where I should take it, but I do, so correct me if I am wrong in that.... If you are talking about people in general, some people in general, who are not writing on here, but our society/culture/country... then I would be more willing to engage in that kind of conversation as I think you are right in a lot of cases. I just need some clarification first.

Originally Posted by Ravenesque

Members of the queer community stood up one year and said fuck this shit. Women did the same. People of color did the same. People the world over have done the same. They stood up and said "this is who we are and it is not who you are but we are human. We demand equal rights."

Yes and I was one of those queers fighting for what queer women take for granted now. My mother was one of those women, with her kids on each side of her. Ironic now isn't it that 30 years later we can't even talk to each other.... yet she raised the person I am, similar values coming head to head. I would go on and clarify what my childhood was like as the daughter of a women's rights activist, but I feel I have put myself out there too much and that it will only cause more judgment from you at this point.

Originally Posted by Ravenesque

But hey perhaps I am not acknowledging something. Many here run from even the term "oppression" because they're not used to it. They are taught that oppressed people are to blame for their own oppression as though they existed in a vacuum with a phantom oppressor. Similar to the mentality that a raped woman was to blame for her rape. They are taught this view or they are simply taught to ignore oppression, it's source and how it effects others. Unlike many, they have inhabited the proverbial normative center for most of their lives, are used to privilege in most aspects of their lives and see no reason why they should care about oppression. Bleeding hearts just end up bloody. Too much trouble and mess. Why not go the easy path in the rare instance where oppression does touch their lives and "pass." Passing is not new. It's been done by many within oppressed groups. Pass for white. Pass for straight. Pass for normal. Pass for someone who agrees with normative values.

Again, directed towards me? Do you think I am blaming oppressed people for my oppression? Do you think I am trying to "pass" with everyone in my life? Yes, I go for passing sometimes... why? because that is how I have chosen to quietly make change that has worked in the past.... after I stopped yelling at people and being angry and frustrated about the world. I just shut people out with this approach, it didn't work for me.

Originally Posted by Ravenesque

The ones who choose to pass are not usually the ones instrumental in bringing the changes that end up benefiting them and allowing them to stop pretending.

I have no idea what you just said here.... say again? Maybe my response above was enough? In a nutshell, I disagree with your last statement.... you sound like my anarchist friend... he talks like you do. Do you identify as an anarchist?

[redpepper]

I LOVE this open, honest communication! :P

[ImaginaryIllusion]

Ok, my last post got a couple of responses which are at best pretty radical interpretations of the text…and at worst could be read as trying to imply something about the author. I don’t know what is going on…be it material from earlier in the thread, or personal issues being projected into the text, or whatever. So let me clarify.

Starting with clearing the air:

Originally Posted by Ravenesque

I love a "suggestion" like this. The assumption that I would make the same decisions as the ones stated here in the same situation therefore I should re-examine my current stance is an argument lacking any sort of logic and ignoring a myriad of variables. It is quite an arrogant view to think everyone would act like you in the same situation.

Like I said…radical interpretation. If I made any assumption at all, it is that you are not a parent…yet, and the part of your post I was responding to was simply your assertion that you would not make a certain decision if you were a parent.

I said nothing about your stance, current or otherwise. I did not say re-examine now. I did not say it without a logical reason, and I did not say anything about anyone acting like me in any situation. There was no situation, other than the transition from being a non-parent/guardian, to being a parent/guardian.

Ok, 2nd assumption was that you didn’t mean to suggest that ‘I’ was arrogant.

Originally Posted by Ravenesque

And imagine the assumptions being made in regards to the role children play in my life and my family's life. Amazing really.

Not sure why this was a necessary comment...I made no such assumptions.

Originally Posted by Ceoli

I have to call this out because this line of thought often sits beneath a lot of misunderstandings.

You know…I think this specific phrase is probably what gets some peoples hackles up. ‘Calling out’ being something that’s done in old westerns just before a gunfight makes it seem very challenging, and could be perceived as an attempt to invalidate someone else’s perspective. Just a thought.

If you have such an intense desire to ‘call out’ everything that’s posted so be it...challenge it all if you like…fill your boots. I'll just say...I don’t answer to you. My lines of thinking don’t answer to you. They answer to me. My opinions and lines of thinking are quite capable of standing on their own, and being valid based on me and my experiences, regardless of challenges...or how much they may make anyone’s blood boil. They are just as valid as anyone else’s experiences or opinions no matter how much they may not suit my own preferences. They don’t need to agree...and I’m ok with that. In this case I actually think we do agree...we just haven't figured that out yet.


Now, the gist of whatever you think I said...

Originally Posted by Ceoli

But really, it's a bit insulting to to be told in effect "You can't possibly understand because you don't have kids". The subtext of that, whether intended or not, is "Your opinion is not valid in this area".

Originally Posted by Ceoli

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.

Again...not at all what I said. If you choose to create an interpretation such as this and be insulted by it, that’s your choice. Take it, own it, make a flower arrangement with it, do whatever you want with it. However it’s not what I said, nor what I meant.


What I did say...and what I actually meant by it:
I do assume LR has both made the transition to become a parent, and also understands what I did say... although I must confess to be a little confused about the metaphor.

Originally Posted by LovingRadiance

No kidding. It's a whole different ball-game. Hell-it's not even a BALL game anymore. It's more of a juggling game-only you get to juggle burning objects that could kill.

Juggling baby geese is one thing...but I’m not so sure about juggling kids...and even less so if they were lit on fire first. I can’t get mine to sit still long enough for pictures. It’s all just making for weird mental images.

In response to the assertion (from a currently non-parent) that they would (as a prediction in the present, about their own actions in the future) not make a certain decision if they were a parent...
To paraphrase, I merely indicated the possibility that their decisions (any decisions, and the way they make them) might...operative word might…be very different to those that they would make now.
It was not a “suggestion”…it was just a suggestion. It’s a subset of the larger suggestion that I would make to anyone who considers themselves conscious and sentient…to go back to re-evaluate and reassess from time to time. Their decisions, their assumptions, everything about themselves. People change over time.

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

Life moves pretty fast. You don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.

Age, life events, education, relationships, society, our own development, all serve to affect us over time. Some events can change us in fundamental and significant ways. Puberty, developing the ability to think in abstract ways, passing into adulthood, the list is extensive. I have a hard time imagining anyone going too far wrong by doing some reassessments, soul-searching or what have you from time to time.

Becoming a parent is one of those experiences capable of such change.
Similar to puberty, it can involve not only physical changes, but psychological, and physiological changes. There are chemical and hormonal devices to bond children to their parents, particularly the mothers. These devices, these bonds are natural, instinctual, base, a product of our evolution, and they sometimes defy the rational mind. Yes, parents can be a little crazy…especially the mothers. There is a reason you don’t mess with a bear cub in the mountains...because Mother Bear is a force of nature not to be trifled with, and fundamentally humans don’t differ a huge amount in this respect.

As far as I’m concerned, this is one of those experiences that cannot be fully known to those who have not experienced it. It can change people in very fundamental ways. The way in which decisions are made can be significantly different than before hand. As such I believe it would be virtually impossible for anyone (short of inventing clairvoyance or Vulcan mind melds) to truly know or predict exactly what decisions they would make after such an event. I know I’ve made this transition, and there are many areas where my thinking and mindset have shifted dramatically. There are areas where my thoughts with regards to my children do not fit in the realm or reason, logic, or rational thought. And even while I understand that I have these thoughts as a parent, I also know that my wife’s experience is different on a level which I can never understand as another mother could.

This is what I’m talking about when I say that non-parents may be very surprised what decisions they will make and why, if and when they become parents. And that was all I was saying. It’s an experience like puberty, like losing a loved one to sickness, or another loved one to violence, being in a combat zone, being stranded in a survival situation, growing up on the streets of NYC...many others. These are situations where no one can be fully sure of their reactions until they are faced with it. They can prepare for it as much as they want, think it through, plan, read, research, whatever...but in the face of reality, the actual actions can…operative word can…be very different than the plan.

Originally Posted by Ravenesque

Just taking a gander at the women in my family and the history and approach to dealing with adversity... I think not.

Raven, If you believe that, and end up living that reality, more power to you. Seriously...no where did I say that decision would be different. If between your own will, your role models, and your own experience as a parent you decide to carry on your course in spite of the obstacles you would get nothing from me other than respect and admiration for that. The same respect and admiration I would give LR or RP for being true to themselves as parents.

However, I would bet that if you became a parent, …active, raising the kid in your home 24/7 parent, something about the way you make decisions will change. Seriously…if you make it to the kid’s 5th birthday, do your soul searching, and can’t find any decision you’ve made as a mother that you wouldn’t have made, or evaluated differently when you were not a mother, I’ll buy you dinner.

[ImaginaryIllusion]

Now…the extension of the comment which was read into the original comment…and what I think it actually means:

While we’re on the subject of what non-parents may or may not know about parents and kids…it’s not entirely unlike teachers and students. Everyone thinks they’re an expert, since generally everyone has been a kid with a parent…just as almost everyone has been a student with a teacher.
I’ve been told by my friends who have since become teachers that it’s quite a different reality being a teacher...including that of Parent/Teacher days where they get to meet several ‘experts’ who will pontificate at the teachers about how they should be doing their job.

This is very similar I think to how parents feel when continuously challenged to justify themselves to those who aren’t parents.

Originally Posted by Ceoli

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.

Ceoli…I chose this specifically because I do think you understand how it can come across...and that it’s probably not the intention.

I also know you realize the other extension of this though…as I alluded to above, the experience of being a parent is an experience unique to individuals...and those who have not had that experience will not have the same perspective. I’ve seen you say as much.

Originally Posted by Ceoli

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.

This last part is the only clincher. Nothing in my post said anything about you or anyone else being ignorant of the issues surrounding care. Between own family, siblings, exposure to children, social work, friends with kids, teaching, there’s a myriad of ways to get experience with kids, know the issues, see family drama in action, even be a part of it.

Non-parents and their perspective can in fact be very valuable, benefiting from not being as myopic or clouded by affections and instinct as parents might be. Regardless of what they know about parenting, they’re still experts with many years experience of being kids…and might remember what it was like better than the parents...but still with the communication abilities of an adult, which kids sometimes lack. Sometimes it can simply be similar to the perspective an observer may have from outside the NRE of two new lovers. As I said, parents can be a little irrational about their kids…and non-parents can sometimes provide a moderating force to balance that. Mothers being a force of nature, the only thing to say about that is that sometimes it needs to be approached very delicately lest the bear comes out from hibernation.

Along those lines, if it sometimes feels that parents react badly to the suggestion that they should make decisions more like you, or that they don’t think you understand, some of that may be a result of a not so delicate approach...but in a few places like this thread, I think some of it comes from a place of envy. Just like some people grow up and get into the working world and long to be back in school again sometimes, so do some parents sometimes long to be able to make decisions for only themselves. To be able to enjoy a former life they might only vaguely remember where there was no responsibility, no babysitters, no minivan, or clothes covered in dried up pabulum.

It’s not that non-parents don’t have something to contribute…and I would never assume that they have nothing to contribute just because they aren’t a parent. I had plenty of good ideas before I was a parent that are still good ideas after too. However, having been a non-parent, while I believe it’s possible, it’s few and far between the individuals who are not parents who would truly understand the full mindset, and decision making of those who are…and that can exist across time as well. The mind as a non-parent may be very different than a few short months later when they become a parent, and that one is different again than the mind after another couple years or raising a child.

Ceoli...I know you in particular should understand this…which is why I also dug out this nugget...

Originally Posted by Ceoli

The facilitator responded with this powerful question: "Who do you think understands the experiences and challenges of being a person of color in white privileged society? You or the people who have lived it all their lives?"

This is simply one of the most brilliant things I’ve ever heard or read. It speaks to something I think is just a plain truth.

In this particular context of addressing non-parents (and I would gladly remodel this for dozens of contexts…it’s that versatile), I would simply paraphrase it to say, who do you think understands the experiences and challenges of being a parent? You, or those who have time-in as parents?

[redpepper]

A little "non-violent communication" might help however.

(this was to go with my last post)

[Ceoli]

Imaginary, I find your post to be a bit too exhausting to fully address tonight as I have to pack for travel, but I will address these points that stuck out to me:

You know…I think this specific phrase is probably what gets some peoples hackles up. ‘Calling out’ being something that’s done in old westerns just before a gunfight makes it seem very challenging, and could be perceived as an attempt to invalidate someone else’s perspective. Just a thought.

If you have such an intense desire to ‘call out’ everything that’s posted so be it...challenge it all if you like…fill your boots. I'll just say...I don’t answer to you. My lines of thinking don’t answer to you. They answer to me. My opinions and lines of thinking are quite capable of standing on their own, and being valid based on me and my experiences, regardless of challenges...or how much they may make anyone’s blood boil. They are just as valid as anyone else’s experiences or opinions no matter how much they may not suit my own preferences. They don’t need to agree...and I’m ok with that. In this case I actually think we do agree...we just haven't figured that out yet.

"Calling out" is the phrase that is most often used in multiple communities I've participated in when something is said by someone that creates ripples in others that the original person may not perceive. It has nothing to do with gunfights in my cultural background. If you have a better phrase feel free to offer it and I'd be happy to consider it. As to my motivations for calling things out, feel free to assume what you would like. I only call things out that have ripples that reach to me, whether the person perceives that or not. I find a ton of assumptions made on this forum and when those assumptions touch me, I address them. To call something out is to bring the issue out into the open so that everyone involved can better understand what happened. I also like to have my ideas challenged and examined. They are worth more to me if they've been examined that way. If it annoys you, then feel free to ignore me.

Again...not at all what I said. If you choose to create an interpretation such as this and be insulted by it, that’s your choice. Take it, own it, make a flower arrangement with it, do whatever you want with it. However it’s not what I said, nor what I meant.

I find it interesting that you previously mention that I should consider that how I phrase something can raise other people's hackles and speak to how it's my choice to have my hackles raised in this situation. So I'm confused as to which advice should be followed when and by whom. I'm honestly ok with either situation. I explained how what you said was insulting to me, you explained that's not what you meant and we could probably go back and forth about it, but frankly, I don't find it worth my time to do so.

And finally:

In this particular context of addressing non-parents (and I would gladly remodel this for dozens of contexts…it’s that versatile), I would simply paraphrase it to say, who do you think understands the experiences and challenges of being a parent? You, or those who have time-in as parents?

I have never spoken to the experiences and challenges of being a parent. I've merely spoken to the effect that certain choices have on other people, despite the fact that they are probably valid choices being made as a parent. I have never said that they should or shouldn't make those choices or presumed to say or know what is best for them.