Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old 02-07-2010, 12:27 AM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default Thoughts

Ok..........

I just finished reading a long essay from one of the links Raven posted - a Freaksexual site.

http://freaksexual.wordpress.com/200...ry-organizing/

So if nothing else I think (?) I have a much better understanding of where this current topic & debate came from.
And it was interesting.
The writer did present some interesting material in places. Overall however it was full of numerous contradictions and some questionable assumptions. The overall tone comes across to me as aggressive and confrontational. Much the same tone we've seen here on this forum at times. And this is an attitude & culture that seems prevalent today.
But here's what "I" came away with if I can boil it down to a short summary.
1> As I suspected before looking deeper, the biggest divide and concern seems to come down to the social interaction/dating aspects. Perfectly understandable.
2> The general tone does seem to be reflective of a general cultural shift that's taken place over the last 25-30 years. Western culture is undoubtedly the champion of this but it has spread worldwide. And it's (to me) not really even an 'age' thing - but only manifesting itself in that guise because people born in that time period have been caught smack-dab in the middle of it and unless they develop some desire/ability to actually seek out what other options there are, will only be in a position to assume 'that's the way life is'. But it doesn't HAVE to be Another topic entirely.
But the riff seems very tied to the current cultural norm of "I want it NOW, I want it MY way, and YOU are in my way !" There doesn't seem to be a lot of room for analyzing if this 'want' is best, if there are other choices, how much work/time might be expected to get there etc. So naturally along with that attitude is a missing element of much desire for what I call true 'dialoge'. It's kind of like........."well - someone else might have something to say about this - maybe it might even have some value - but I ain't got time for it. I'm on a mission (of self fulfillment) Don't bother me now."
And what I guess I find disturbing about this general approach is maybe the missed opportunity for learning about true dialog and skills. It's mostly about talking and not so much about listening. Not looking for, or trying to build, common ground as much as zoned in on differences and justification to 'do your own thing'.
Now, this may itself sound 'age-ist', and I guess it is important to note that, as I mentioned to someone else recently, I'm one O dem damn hippies ! So my perspective and experiences kind of go back to a lot of the beginnings of these social awarness causes. But things WERE different then. We didn't have books and professors then to just lay it all out in nice, neat little packages (designed and edited by who knows who). We had to build it, figure it out as we went. But one thing that was different is that we didn't think we had all the answers. So input and TRUE dialog (bidirectional) was critical and fundemental. Even the concept of age-ism would have been so foreign & unacceptable as to be insulting to the group !
So bottom line - I don't see this being anything at all about 'marginalization'. If it is, it's obviously self designed & perpetuating. Too bad really. If there is to be defined a 'victim' here (another wonderful modern cultural phenomenon) it seems they may be mostly self inflicted wounds.

GS
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 02-07-2010, 02:10 AM
Ravenesque's Avatar
Ravenesque Ravenesque is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
While I don't disagree raven, you bring up a lot of points I used to debate with when I argued with my family. However how do you ensure the safety of certain individuals without some marginalization.
I find this interesting. The concept of preserving the safety of people by denying them the ability to do things. I think it is valid for one thing at this point. But the rest?

I'm still waiting for The Netherlands to fall into the sea at this point with all the whoring and drug use that's allowed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
Take sex as an example. I think we can agree that not everyone who is 14 should be having sex. They can't handle it. Hence why laws are in place in certain areas. Lets say we remove those laws. This opens up those who can't naturally handle the repercussions & responsibilities of having sex (std, pregnancy etc) How does that get handled? Do we leave it to the parents who are doing a random job of raising kids? Schools? Or do we just let chaos be chaos and hope for the best.
What is the assumption being made here about those who are 14 as opposed to those who are 34 or 54? Are all of those in these age ranges ready to handle the repercussions and responsibilities of having sex? Why are these laws put in place for those who are 14 alone? What is the relation to age?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
Apply that to your driving rentals. This one is likely easier to deal with, but how do you NOT have blanket laws, or do you just let the 21 to 24 year olds run wild and hope that they don't get into accidents, which is statistically higher in that age group and sex.
The law does not prevent or have any effect on accidents. It simply allows higher fees to be levied on car renters aged 21 to 24. It does not exist in every state. The non-discriminatory way to handle this would be to examine driving history and proceed accordingly much like how credit history is used. Next is to improve education in regards to driving. Somehow my BF held a license from the age of 15, drove everywhere from rural to urban and never had an accident or violation. Yet the blanket does not take this into account.

A blanket is just that. A blanket. A band-aid that does not address the underlying problem. If male drivers aged 21-24 (or any age group) have more accidents than other age groups in one area (because it will differ in various locations), focus on increasing education in the observed troublesome areas. If parallel parking is a problem, focus on parallel parking. Why let the obvious issue go ignored? So it can be used as a justification to make more money?

These are human beings who can learn. Being 21-24 is not indicative of some age related deficiency in driving that will only be cured at 25 or any other age.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
How do you have controls in place to help those people who for whatever reason are not mature and/or old enough to help themselves, while they fully believe they are doing good things. Or are you talking about opening up completely and letting the coins fall as they may.
What I see throughout your post is an equation of age to possibility of chaos and maturity level. As though allowing younger people the same rights as older people would somehow be inciting chaos and things running wild. Letting the coins fall where they may.

We're not working from the same premise. I don't equate capability and maturity (beyond physical maturity and even that varies from individual to individual) with how old someone is. Young =/= reckless.

As I do not think age is the root of these problems, the alternatives would not focus on age. Statistics can be used to discriminate or they can be used to improve societal conditions.

Education, required education if necessary, would alleviate driving issues as needed in certain areas.

Another example of a statistic that has been used both ways is the amount of AIDS and HIV cases in certain communities. It's been used as justification by some for why staying away from certain communities of people is fine. However the non-marginalizing route would be examining issues of access to healthcare and sexual health education and addressing the lack thereof.

ADDED: The most ludicrous one I find in regards to the above is not allowing gay men the ability to donate blood. Different issues from driving but the same concept is applied. A blanket rule for a higher risk group.

An analogy is that statistically some plants don't grow well in some regions as opposed to others. It can be stated that blanketly those plants shouldn't be grown.

Or if a plant doesn't grow well here but it grows spectacularly there, we can observe what is lacking here and give it what it needs to flourish. It might need a greenhouse.

The cost might seem high for plants. Some people do it though.


Is there a cost too high to improve human beings and their quality of life? That answer may differ depending on the person.


Alternatives are problem-solving, practical and not a symptom of being young and steeped in utopianism.

~Raven~
__________________
Are you a polyamorist or non-monogamous individual between the ages 18-35? Are you located in New York State or the Northeast?
Join us at The Network, a social and socially aware network which connects young polys and progressive polys of all ages.



~Open up your mind and let me step inside.
Rest your weary head and let your heart decide. It's so easy.
When you know the rules.
It's so easy. All you have to do is fall in love.
Play the game.
Everybody play the game of love. Yeah...~

Last edited by Ravenesque; 02-07-2010 at 03:30 AM. Reason: Blood donation blanket.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 02-07-2010, 02:58 AM
Ravenesque's Avatar
Ravenesque Ravenesque is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
See, the thing is, I don't see that as marginalization of "younger polys", i see that as drawing a line in the sand with regard to age-appropriate material (as determined by society in general and the government in particular). While some may consider this to be a semantic way of justifying "marginalization", I think of it as part of the "social contract" with a resulting rite of passage. The same could be said for "excluding" people under the age of 21 from the "bar scene" or "denying" people under a certain age from the "right" to work.
What qualifies as age-appropriate and what is the rationale behind that?

As a chosen 'rite of passage' I think these (drinking, sex, voting, working) pretty much suck.

What is constantly being ignored is that, in this society in particular, denial is followed by binging/gorging more often than not. When people are denied something, they can go a little 'wild,' to borrow a word Ariakas used, when they finally get it. This is not a reaction that is limited to younger people in the slightest.

But it does seem this reaction is being socially self-induced when it comes to young people. A self-created problem.

It can be observed that within different countries and different cultures, sex and drinking, etc are treated quite differently with all manner of different variables. Lower drinking ages is fun to check in connection to auto accidents and DWI incidents. Even cultures that are considered "less advanced" by Western standards have women living day to day topless and men aren't frothing at the mouth, forcing themselves on anyone nor are people only having sex day in and day out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
So, younger people will continue to be "marginalized" in many ways that are considered beneficial by society - ostensibly in order to "protect" the same group that is being "marginalized".
This sounds similar to what Ariakas stated about safety. Why is this 'protection' not extended to all age groups?
Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
I guess I don't see this in the same light as racism or sexism. And I haven't experienced it in the same way either. Everyone was/is young(er) at some point. NOT everyone is black or female at some point. So, I don't think of forming groups that focus on certain age demographics and not others are "marginalizing" or "discriminating" against the groups that they do not focus on.
I feel like this could tip off an entirely different discussion about groups aimed at women, different ethnic groups or races, or religions. What do you feel about them? I am curious but it is too far removed from the topic to engage in a full conversation I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
However, as I have said before, I have felt marginalized as a younger person in the workplace, where the purpose of the organization is not to serve the needs of a certain age demographic but to combine efforts to provide a product or service to consumers. In that setting, marginalization of any sub-group is counterproductive to the goal(s) or the organization or business as well as to the personal agendas of individual workers. That is why laws such as affirmative action are needed, although that is a whole other double-edged sword because it can lead to further marginalization.

That's all I have for now.
I think that's quite a lot. And I understand and agree for the most part.

I'll say this about the double edged sword. I don't see it. I'll stick with plants for a moment.

You have two plants (as you may have two human beings). One gets watered regularly, sunlight and a bonus. The bonus is fertilizer. It grows and it flourishes.

The other plant gets a drip of water a day, the majority of the day it is hidden from the sun and it gets no fertilizer. Affirmative action enables the last sad plant the same water, sunlight and yes even the fertilizer that the first plant has. From the same store of resources. The first plant can no longer hoard the abundant resources all to itself. Cries of reverse discrimination are the first plant not liking the second plant growing in leaps and bounds now with the proper care, as well as not liking the reality of sharing the resources it once had all to itself.

~Raven~
__________________
Are you a polyamorist or non-monogamous individual between the ages 18-35? Are you located in New York State or the Northeast?
Join us at The Network, a social and socially aware network which connects young polys and progressive polys of all ages.



~Open up your mind and let me step inside.
Rest your weary head and let your heart decide. It's so easy.
When you know the rules.
It's so easy. All you have to do is fall in love.
Play the game.
Everybody play the game of love. Yeah...~
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 02-07-2010, 05:14 AM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundedSpirit View Post
Said the store clerk...........

I caught a shoplifter first thing this morning.
And all I saw the rest of the day was more shoplifters !
Be glad when today is over !

That's a great way to dismiss a perspective that's different than yours. I'm glad that works for you.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 02-07-2010, 01:39 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenesque View Post
What qualifies as age-appropriate and what is the rationale behind that?
I'm not the one who decides these things. Besides, your question is not very specific and I am not inclined to write a PhD thesis just because you asked me to.

Quote:
As a chosen 'rite of passage' I think these (drinking, sex, voting, working) pretty much suck.
You have the right to your opinion. A lot of things "suck", and people need to suck it up. This is the reality, not paradise.

Quote:
What is constantly being ignored is that, in this society in particular, denial is followed by binging/gorging more often than not. When people are denied something, they can go a little 'wild,' to borrow a word Ariakas used, when they finally get it. This is not a reaction that is limited to younger people in the slightest.

But it does seem this reaction is being socially self-induced when it comes to young people. A self-created problem.
I guess the answer is to allow anyone of any age to drink, vote, and fuck anytime anywhere.

Maybe education should not be mandatory in Western society for certain age groups either. After all, other cultures do not require it, some even forbid the education of women in certain circumstances. Maybe all people of all ages should be allowed to choose what they eat, where they go, what they do. If a 7 year old knows what's best for him or her self, who are parents or the government to dictate otherwise? If a 7 year old or a 9 year old or a 4 year old wants to sit and watch cartoons and eat nothing but Lucky Charms cereal all day, they should be allowed to because it would be ageist to suggest that someone else who is older might know better. How dare adults set boundaries for their children or for minors as a group? That's just wrong. Everyone should be free to decide everything for themselves. Fuck society.

And porn should be made available to people of all ages. Who are we as a society to deny children of all ages the "right" to explore their sexuality! That's AGEISM! It should be all or nothing. If something is appropriate for a 21-year-old, it should be appropriate for a 16 year old. If something is appropriate for a 16 year old, it should be appropriate for a 12 year old. If something is appropriate for a 12 year old, it should be ook for a 5 year old... because where do we draw the line and who decides where the line should be drawn?

I say, "Deal with it, and when you're 21 (or 18 or 19, depending where you live), then you can sit at the adult table or go out drinking with the big kids."

You're sounding like it's some horrible thing to not be allowed to do whatever, whenever. Yet, below you say that affirmative action is necessary to maintain a level playing field. Make up your mind.

Quote:
This sounds similar to what Ariakas stated about safety. Why is this 'protection' not extended to all age groups?
I don't know. Why don't you know?

Quote:
I feel like this could tip off an entirely different discussion about groups aimed at women, different ethnic groups or races, or religions. What do you feel about them? I am curious but it is too far removed from the topic to engage in a full conversation I think.
I don't feel anything about them and choose not to engage in a debate with you about this.

Quote:
I think that's quite a lot. And I understand and agree for the most part.

I'll say this about the double edged sword. I don't see it. I'll stick with plants for a moment.

You have two plants (as you may have two human beings). One gets watered regularly, sunlight and a bonus. The bonus is fertilizer. It grows and it flourishes.

The other plant gets a drip of water a day, the majority of the day it is hidden from the sun and it gets no fertilizer. Affirmative action enables the last sad plant the same water, sunlight and yes even the fertilizer that the first plant has. From the same store of resources. The first plant can no longer hoard the abundant resources all to itself. Cries of reverse discrimination are the first plant not liking the second plant growing in leaps and bounds now with the proper care, as well as not liking the reality of sharing the resources it once had all to itself.
The "double edged sword" was in regard to when people are hired to fill demographic quotas even if a white male really does happen to be the most qualified applicant for the job.

However, what you described with the plants is not part of the "double-edged sword". I don't believe that there is such a thing as "reverse discrimination". I think that's just a way of white males trying to retain a semblance of privilege by defining a special form of discrimination that applies only to their demographic group. Discrimination is discrimination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundedSpirit View Post
Said the store clerk...........

I caught a shoplifter first thing this morning.
And all I saw the rest of the day was more shoplifters !
Be glad when today is over !

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
That's a great way to dismiss a perspective that's different than yours. I'm glad that works for you.
Psst!

Said the airport terminal security worker...

I caught someone trying to blow up the plane this morning.
And all I saw the rest of the day were more suicide-bombers!
Be glad when today is over!

(pay no attention to the little terrorist behind the curtain)

<GRIN>

Last edited by NeonKaos; 02-07-2010 at 01:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 02-07-2010, 06:01 PM
Ravenesque's Avatar
Ravenesque Ravenesque is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
I'm not the one who decides these things. Besides, your question is not very specific and I am not inclined to write a PhD thesis just because you asked me to.
I did not ask for a Ph.D. thesis. It is unfortunate you feel the need to characterize my question as a request for one. I asked for the reasoning behind why you agreed with the "age-appropriate" line in the sand as I was interested in your view. It is your right not to answer. It seems discussion was not your aim there which is again your choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
You have the right to your opinion. A lot of things "suck", and people need to suck it up. This is the reality, not paradise.
I suppose I'm not one of those people that accepts the status quo. And I find I am unapologetic. I do not see why anyone should "suck it up." If there is injustice in reality it can be changed. It does not have to be accepted. I engage in the proactive and not a defeatist attitude. The world might have been suck-ier still if people just "sucked it up."
Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
I guess the answer is to allow anyone of any age to drink, vote, and fuck anytime anywhere.

Maybe education should not be mandatory in Western society for certain age groups either. After all, other cultures do not require it, some even forbid the education of women in certain circumstances. Maybe all people of all ages should be allowed to choose what they eat, where they go, what they do. If a 7 year old knows what's best for him or her self, who are parents or the government to dictate otherwise? If a 7 year old or a 9 year old or a 4 year old wants to sit and watch cartoons and eat nothing but Lucky Charms cereal all day, they should be allowed to because it would be ageist to suggest that someone else who is older might know better. How dare adults set boundaries for their children or for minors as a group? That's just wrong. Everyone should be free to decide everything for themselves. Fuck society.

And porn should be made available to people of all ages. Who are we as a society to deny children of all ages the "right" to explore their sexuality! That's AGEISM! It should be all or nothing. If something is appropriate for a 21-year-old, it should be appropriate for a 16 year old. If something is appropriate for a 16 year old, it should be appropriate for a 12 year old. If something is appropriate for a 12 year old, it should be ook for a 5 year old... because where do we draw the line and who decides where the line should be drawn?

I say, "Deal with it, and when you're 21 (or 18 or 19, depending where you live), then you can sit at the adult table or go out drinking with the big kids."
Interesting interpretation. Someone mentioned anarchy in another thread. Anarchy was not advocated but I find it interesting that that is the conclusion drawn when someone suggests change. No matter what the change is. Similar to ridiculous assertions that people will be asking to marry their pets next if same-sex marriage is allowed.

I do not understand the logic of going to the far extreme as you have done and as others have done.

I am seriously suggesting a different framework be worked from not no framework at all. I see that 'no framework' is the conclusion made often by those who are comfortable with the current one. They do say change makes people uncomfortable and afraid. I suppose there's some truth to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
You're sounding like it's some horrible thing to not be allowed to do whatever, whenever. Yet, below you say that affirmative action is necessary to maintain a level playing field. Make up your mind.
Your interpretation again of a suggestion that society might function differently and perhaps for the better. In reality I made no claim that it is a horrible thing not to be allowed to do whatever, whenever. Again, the conclusion of a free for all where it was never brought up.

If you feel what you stated above would be beneficial to society in addressing the problems that exists, that is your prerogative. I will have to disagree and continue to work towards practical and equitable solutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
So, younger people will continue to be "marginalized" in many ways that are considered beneficial by society - ostensibly in order to "protect" the same group that is being "marginalized".
Quote:
This sounds similar to what Ariakas stated about safety. Why is this 'protection' not extended to all age groups?
Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
I don't know. Why don't you know?
People tend to ask questions when they do not know something. As I don't read minds, I asked you in regards to your first statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
I don't feel anything about them and choose not to engage in a debate with you about this.
Was there a request for a debate? I was interested in your opinion but I didn't want to go into a discussion about it. I believe I stated that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
The "double edged sword" was in regard to when people are hired to fill demographic quotas even if a white male really does happen to be the most qualified applicant for the job.

However, what you described with the plants is not part of the "double-edged sword". I don't believe that there is such a thing as "reverse discrimination". I think that's just a way of white males trying to retain a semblance of privilege by defining a special form of discrimination that applies only to their demographic group. Discrimination is discrimination.
I actually do see the plants as apart of the "double-edged sword." It is the same treatment which was given to the first plant being given to the second plant. The exact same. That's equity. Historically jobs have been given based on the color and not the qualifications meaning the one with the qualifications did not get the job or the college acceptance (or whatever opportunity) more than once. Hence the withering plant. Now we want the second plant to reach the same level of growth and flourish as the first plant. Logically what needs to be done so that the plants are at the same level of growth?

~Raven~
__________________
Are you a polyamorist or non-monogamous individual between the ages 18-35? Are you located in New York State or the Northeast?
Join us at The Network, a social and socially aware network which connects young polys and progressive polys of all ages.



~Open up your mind and let me step inside.
Rest your weary head and let your heart decide. It's so easy.
When you know the rules.
It's so easy. All you have to do is fall in love.
Play the game.
Everybody play the game of love. Yeah...~
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 02-07-2010, 06:11 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,223
Default

I think I said somewhere in this thread that it's about choosing battles, and choosing certain priorities over others. I candidly admit that I do not really give a damn what people do to each other because people as a species should be able to take care of themselves as individuals. So all the things mentioned in this thread about humans marginalizing each other is simply a topic for intellectual masturbation as far as I'm concerned. I do my best to not be a part of the problem, but I'm not going to make my reason for waking up in the morning to fight against the oppression of all humans everywhere.

So that is why I answered your post the way I did. I guess this makes me a "pessimist", but I have become comfortable with that.

Last edited by NeonKaos; 02-07-2010 at 06:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 02-07-2010, 07:14 PM
Ravenesque's Avatar
Ravenesque Ravenesque is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 297
Default

*nods* All right YGirl. More power to you. I do not think we're at odds.

There's a happy medium in my perspective between individuality and the recognition that people need people. We have an effect on each other. The world is an interdependent interconnected web. Therefore I care and move through life with intentionality and awareness of the effect I and others have, as this is the nature of reality. I'd say I'm a realist, and somewhat a cross between a existentialist and a transcendentalist. My entire day may not be dedicated to raising awareness, encouraging change as well as being the change but I could not live every day apathetically or devoid of sympathy for others. And I agree, when it comes to deciding the priorities in one's life, one approach more than the other lends itself to creating change or even discussing it constructively in a forum like this.

~Raven~
__________________
Are you a polyamorist or non-monogamous individual between the ages 18-35? Are you located in New York State or the Northeast?
Join us at The Network, a social and socially aware network which connects young polys and progressive polys of all ages.



~Open up your mind and let me step inside.
Rest your weary head and let your heart decide. It's so easy.
When you know the rules.
It's so easy. All you have to do is fall in love.
Play the game.
Everybody play the game of love. Yeah...~
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 02-08-2010, 03:46 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
I think I said somewhere in this thread that it's about choosing battles, and choosing certain priorities over others.
YGirl, I absolutely agree with you - because of our differing life experiences we all make choices as to what our priorities are, and the "battles" that we have to face. I don't expect anybody to share my priorities, nor do I respect them to expecting me to share theirs. I think someone's priorities are something that is personal to them, and they should have to justify them to anybody else. As I have said before, it is between them and their own conscience, and not the evaluation of others.

That having been said, in order to make a decision on the priorities that I set, I need information. Without hearing the different issues that are out there it's very difficult to make an informed decision about what is or is not important to me in terms of which battles I give my higher priority.

Therefore I have welcomed the input from all in this thread, giving their take on what is going on - it has certainly helped me formulate my own opinions on where this sits in my priority list, and as a bonus has given me a good bit more insight into the various contributors here.
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 02-08-2010, 03:54 PM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CielDuMatin View Post
That having been said, in order to make a decision on the priorities that I set, I need information. Without hearing the different issues that are out there it's very difficult to make an informed decision about what is or is not important to me in terms of which battles I give my higher priority.

Therefore I have welcomed the input from all in this thread, giving their take on what is going on - it has certainly helped me formulate my own opinions on where this sits in my priority list, and as a bonus has given me a good bit more insight into the various contributors here.
As was said before, this forum and this thread aren't terribly representative of the people you've been saying that you want information from. I really can't see how what you read here would be sufficient enough to give you a clearer view. Unless confirmation bias is what you were seeking.

If this is something you truly would like to understand, I would suggest going outside of this forum and reading and researching around marginalization and concentration of power. There are many subtleties to the dynamic you were attempting to understand and this thread has barely scratched the surface since many people have been just seeing what they want to see rather than really engage.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ageism, exclusion, marginalization, tng, young

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:15 PM.