|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Live together, never marry?
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Marvin
I think that's right. The quality of any present day relationship, even one which breaks down for reasons of incompatibility, depends primarily on the character, affections and commitment of those engaged in it.
Which is not to say that all relationships may benefit from outside help (not interference) from time to time. Nor does it deny the grace of God, who may be a very present help in times of trouble.
[ 04. July 2016, 09:52: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It is the patriarchal nature of society, rather than marriage in and of itself. However, marriage has strong association with patriarchy in our culture.
I have objections to the nuclear family as the definitive unit, however. Even if one expands the definition to include LGBT, single-parent, etc., it is too insular and limiting.
ISTM, extended family is a healthier structure, all things being equal.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
All women were put at risk of domestic violence, death and permanent illness via childbirth, a husband drinking away their wages on a Friday night, etc etc, via marriage.
I fail to see how those risks are any different in any other form of relationship.
Not only are the risks not different, I suspect they would actually be *greater* for a woman who didn't have the legal protections of marriage (in the past, I mean, not so much today).
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Oh and Twilight, where is your apology for saying that I said I hate men? I did not and do not hate men. Why is lying about me OK?
I did not say you said you hated men. I said: quote:
" I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society."
I was disagreeing with the position that seems to say that the patriarchy was in all ways oppressive to women.
I appreciate that, and think it's a viable, if debatable, position-- but it's not at all what you said in the part you quoted that Pomona is responding to. I don't see how in the world you get "I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society" as equivalent to "disagreeing with the position that seems to say that the patriarchy was in all ways oppressive." I DO see where Pomona interprets that as suggesting she hates all men-- or at least all men in patriarchal societies (which would be pretty much all men).
Of course, that may very well not be what you intended. But it is very much the more obvious interpretation of what you wrote-- whereas your paraphrase seems to be something else entirely.
I made a post defending the Patriarchy as not all bad. (I was thinking of my amazing grandfather, born 1880, hard working farmer, mercilessly henpecked by his domineering wife.)
Pomona responded with a post telling me I must not have heard of feminism because if I had I would know that The Patriarchy was bad and thinking so was a cornerstone of feminism.
I responded by saying that I actually was a feminist and I didn't think it required hating all the men who were part of the patriarchy.
Pomona was offended.
I apologized.
Pomona accepted my apology.
Unsurprisingly, Cliffdweller was not satisfied.
I don't know what you want from me here, Cliffdweller. You'll have to quote exactly what I said that you just can't get over, because I can't apologize for whatever dark interpretation of my posts you have landed on until I understand it better.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't know what you want from me here, Cliffdweller. You'll have to quote exactly what I said that you just can't get over, because I can't apologize for whatever dark interpretation of my posts you have landed on until I understand it better.
I don't want anything from you and there's nothing I "can't get over." I simply was offering my 2 cents that your post read to me exactly as it did for Pomona. In my post I did quote exactly what I was referring to: the reference to "not hating men" which was interpreted by Pomona and myself as being about "not hating men." Of course, you very well may not have meant "not hating men" when you said "not hating men." I just don't think it was an outlandish interpretation.
*shrugs*
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
...but I was ill-advised to reopen the issue just to get my 2 cents in. Being in a much later time zone, I'm often reading threads hours later and trying to catch up, don't always take the time to read the entire thread before responding to a post. It would be better if I did, obviously, but it's hard when you're trying to follow an ongoing conversation. The end result being that this can happen-- I didn't see the resolution before realizing I was needlessly stirring the pot. Apologies.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
All women were put at risk of domestic violence, death and permanent illness via childbirth, a husband drinking away their wages on a Friday night, etc etc, via marriage.
I fail to see how those risks are any different in any other form of relationship.
Note the use of 'were'. I was specifically talking about the risks of marriage to women in the past, when marriage was the only form of relationship acceptably available to them.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
a force for oppression
Threatening, really? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) If they're really upset by it then maybe they should make it not a force for oppression rather than blaming people who are oppressed by it. I suppose it's no different to white people being threatened by blackness etc though.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
a force for oppression
Threatening, really? If they're really upset by it then maybe they should make it not a force for oppression rather than blaming people who are oppressed by it. I suppose it's no different to white people being threatened by blackness etc though.
I think you miss the point. This is equivalent to the following exchange:
A: You suck.
B: I'm offended by that.
A: Then maybe you should suck less.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
a force for oppression
Threatening, really? There are cishet people in relationships other than the nuclear family, so why would they feel threatened?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
a force for oppression
Threatening, really? If they're really upset by it then maybe they should make it not a force for oppression rather than blaming people who are oppressed by it. I suppose it's no different to white people being threatened by blackness etc though.
I think you miss the point. This is equivalent to the following exchange:
A: You suck.
B: I'm offended by that.
A: Then maybe you should suck less.
Well then explain why saying that the nuclear family has been a force for oppression - which is not a unique idea, both academics and ordinary activists have said so - is so threatening to cishet people, many of whom are not part of nuclear family setups? It's a bit pathetic really.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You're still doing it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
All women were put at risk of domestic violence, death and permanent illness via childbirth, a husband drinking away their wages on a Friday night, etc etc, via marriage.
I fail to see how those risks are any different in any other form of relationship.
Note the use of 'were'. I was specifically talking about the risks of marriage to women in the past, when marriage was the only form of relationship acceptably available to them.
It's true that there are more forms of socially-acceptable relationships now, but that's irrelevant to the issue of the risks a person is taking when entering one unless you're asserting that some forms of relationship are inherently less risky than others.
My point is that any relationship carries those risks. They are neither inherent nor exclusive to marriage (Nor, for that matter, are they specific to one gender/sex). Which makes your comment incorrect in as much as it implies that marriage is inherently worse for women than any other relationship, and irrelevant to the question of whether living together without marriage is worse/better than marriage itself.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
a force for oppression
Threatening, really? If they're really upset by it then maybe they should make it not a force for oppression rather than blaming people who are oppressed by it. I suppose it's no different to white people being threatened by blackness etc though.
I think you miss the point. This is equivalent to the following exchange:
A: You suck.
B: I'm offended by that.
A: Then maybe you should suck less.
Well then explain why saying that the nuclear family has been a force for oppression - which is not a unique idea, both academics and ordinary activists have said so - is so threatening to cishet people, many of whom are not part of nuclear family setups? It's a bit pathetic really.
Again you miss the point. It isn't about the concept, but they way you choose to express it.
Effective communication is about more than choosing technically correct words, it is choosing words/expressions that convey one's message best. And this means choosing words with the right flavour, as well as meaning.
The more aggressive the tone, the more defences raised. Especially when those addressed do not think anything is wrong.
Most hetero married people are not trying to oppress anyone, they are just following instinct and cultural conditioning. So, if you wish to effectively communicate to them, softer expression of the same message will more likely be accepted.
After all, for many, their marriage is part of their identity. It is their connection to the people they love most. To use words like damaging and oppression is threatening.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
]Well then explain why saying that the nuclear family has been a force for oppression - which is not a unique idea, both academics and ordinary activists have said so - is so threatening to cishet people, many of whom are not part of nuclear family setups? It's a bit pathetic really.
"Cishet." What I find pathetic is your overriding need to label everyone, sometimes with old labels sometimes with brand new ones, all based on what their naked bodies look like and what they do with them in the privacy of their own homes. Why does it matter?
How is this working toward an open minded inclusive society? How does this contribute to seeing people as full individuals with talents and brains and not as purely sexual objects?
You do realize that your labels are never going to include everyone don't you? Will you be dissatisfied if someone says something about marriage between lesbians, bisexuals, gays, transgenders, and queers and leaves out asexuals, AIS women, uni-testicular masochistic men in relationships with post menopausal women who like to be spanked? What does any of that have to do with whether marriage or living together is preferable?
We all should have the same rights, so why have the labels? Transgendered people who have gone through the time, money and pain to become another sex actually then deserve to be considered as that sex. They then actually ARE men or women not trans-anything. That's all anyone needs to know because the rest is history.
Surely people are more than these things. Surely what you do in your bedroom is only a part of who you are. If your whole identity is wrapped up in what you like to do in bed then life is probably going to seem meaningless at some point. All I've done in bed for the last twenty years is sleep and read. Label that.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
All I've done in bed for the last twenty years is sleep and read. Label that.
You're a librisomnisexual.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
"Cishet." What I find pathetic is your overriding need to label everyone, sometimes with old labels sometimes with brand new ones, all based on what their naked bodies look like and what they do with them in the privacy of their own homes. Why does it matter?
Labels matter because most people have no clue to the variety of gender identity types. It is the first step in educating the "norms".
It is a common thing for people to say "can we just move on"? and "let's just treat people as people". This has not worked for black people as well as hoped. It only works when the majority of issues are solved, this is not the case for race and it is certainly not the case for gender.
I do think the tone can soften, but the message still needs to be expressed firmly. Gently, perhaps, but still firmly.
And, to beat everyone with the same stick, "pathetic" is not the word I would chose If I wished a person to absorb the accompanying message.
[ 04. July 2016, 15:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
People whose group is the dominant group in a society can afford to not think about groups. This goes for race, sexuality, gender, religion, or whatever. As a white male, I can believe that everything is good and well as regards sex and race in America, and I can say "let's all be color-blind and not care about what race or sex someone is!" because power differentials in those areas don't impinge upon my safety or ability to live my life as I choose. People of color and people who are not male don't have that luxury. It is part of what is being referred to when people talk about "privilege."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Marriage equality has been legislated in Canada. Was it wrong to have that? Any 2 people may marry.
There is research that says both men and women benefit with marriage, both in regard to physical and mental health, in addition to that which says marriage is harmful to women. The research that seems to clarify the nature of the relationships seems to be more enlightening than the blanket "all marriage bad/oppressive" view. Which simply is not true. Some marriages are oppressive, many are not.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
What I find pathetic is your overriding need to label everyone
Twilight, did you not bother to read Eliab's hostly warning here?
The same applies to you.
Stop insulting posters, stop inviting personal attacks. Take it to Hell or play by the rules in Purgatory.
[Edited to add: and in case of doubt, this applies to everybody].
/hosting
[ 04. July 2016, 16:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
[ 05. July 2016, 00:26: Message edited by: Huia ]
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
Sorry about that. I am left breathless by Mousethief's erudition ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
At the risk of digging myself in deeper, on re-reading my last post it could be seen as being snarky towards Mousethief. That was not my intention, and I apologise to him.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
No worries.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is research that says both men and women benefit with marriage, both in regard to physical and mental health, in addition to that which says marriage is harmful to women. The research that seems to clarify the nature of the relationships seems to be more enlightening than the blanket "all marriage bad/oppressive" view. Which simply is not true. Some marriages are oppressive, many are not.
Interestingly, I've also seen research which says domestic violence is more likely to occur in cohabiting than in married relationships, so just living together isn't always the more liberating option.
Some say the difference is due to the demographics and partner selection choices involved in the two forms of lifestyle. Where these elements are merging (as is happening in Canada, apparently) there'll be less and less difference between marriage and cohabitation.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some say the difference is due to the demographics
Of, bloody, course it is. Societal attitudes will also have had a major effect.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
People whose group is the dominant group in a society can afford to not think about groups. This goes for race, sexuality, gender, religion, or whatever. As a white male, I can believe that everything is good and well as regards sex and race in America, and I can say "let's all be color-blind and not care about what race or sex someone is!" because power differentials in those areas don't impinge upon my safety or ability to live my life as I choose. People of color and people who are not male don't have that luxury. It is part of what is being referred to when people talk about "privilege."
I believe that's referred to as an "unmarked category". To white people, race is something other people have. To straight folks sexual orientation is a bunch of categories for other people. Unmarked categories are typically adopted as "normal" and everything else is judged by the degree to which it differs.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Croesos wrote: quote:
I believe that's referred to as an "unmarked category". To white people, race is something other people have. To straight folks sexual orientation is a bunch of categories for other people. Unmarked categories are typically adopted as "normal" and everything else is judged by the degree to which it differs.
Yes. Other common usages being " African American" and "Person of color".
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
People whose group is the dominant group in a society can afford to not think about groups. This goes for race, sexuality, gender, religion, or whatever. As a white male, I can believe that everything is good and well as regards sex and race in America, and I can say "let's all be color-blind and not care about what race or sex someone is!" because power differentials in those areas don't impinge upon my safety or ability to live my life as I choose. People of color and people who are not male don't have that luxury. It is part of what is being referred to when people talk about "privilege."
I believe that's referred to as an "unmarked category". To white people, race is something other people have. To straight folks sexual orientation is a bunch of categories for other people. Unmarked categories are typically adopted as "normal" and everything else is judged by the degree to which it differs.
I can't speak for other people but "race," has always been something I have. From childhood I've had to fill out forms where boxes are checked as to race and I learned that I was supposed to check "white." I was surprised to learn that when someone lumps all white people together and says negative things about them, that didn't come under what I had learned to call racism, but was either "reverse racism," or not racism at all.
Suggesting that we try to be colorblind or gender blind doesn't have to mean that someone thinks "all is well," it could also mean that we are well aware of the problems, but think that there might be improvement in things like equal hiring practices, if we leave the boxes off applications. Problems like police profiling don't seem to be helped by greater awareness of race, but by more of an attempt at color blindness. In my life I've seen people become accustomed to seeing women in jobs that they never or rarely held before and this has been accomplished in part by judging the person's work before seeing their gender.
I think there a difference between people of a certain gender, race or sexual orientation joining together with others like themselves to raise consciousness and self esteem, but I don't think it is always helpful to insist that other people be made aware of all those differences before engaging as friends or workmates. Partly because it's not anyone else's business whether I define myself as Asian or African American or straight or bisexual, and partly because I think nothing promotes acceptance and understanding among people better than knowing the person first and the labels later.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I can't speak for other people but "race," has always been something I have. From childhood I've had to fill out forms where boxes are checked as to race and I learned that I was supposed to check "white." . . .
Suggesting that we try to be colorblind or gender blind doesn't have to mean that someone thinks "all is well," it could also mean that we are well aware of the problems, but think that there might be improvement in things like equal hiring practices, if we leave the boxes off applications. Problems like police profiling don't seem to be helped by greater awareness of race, but by more of an attempt at color blindness.
I'd suggest that ceasing to collect data on problems like police profiling or employment discrimination is more along the lines of "hiding" the problem rather than "helping" it. It's kind of like the way police brutality suddenly came into existence when everyone started carrying around smart phones with video cameras. If your solution to the problem that everyone given a speeding ticket in Ferguson, MO (to take one not at all random example) has a box marked "Black/African-American" checked off on the police report and your solution is to simply eliminate that box from the form, then perhaps you're not seeing the same "problem" others are.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To white people, race is something other people have.
Like Twilight, that is not my experience. (And like Twilight, I can only speak to my experience, of course.)
My experience is that the average American white person thinks everyone belongs to a "race," however much the concept of "race" may depend on (arbitrary) social constructs. In the US, at least, "race" correlates very heavily, almost exclusively, to skin color as indicative of African, Asian, European or Native American descent.
It's ethnicity that in my experience many American white people think only refers to non-whites. The idea that WASPs, for example, can be just as ethnic as any non-white group doesn't cross the minds of many white people.
[ 05. July 2016, 20:37: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I was surprised to learn that when someone lumps all white people together and says negative things about them, that didn't come under what I had learned to call racism, but was either "reverse racism," or not racism at all.
It is simply racism. The "reverse", IMO, is a clumsy way of expressing the direction.
quote:
Suggesting that we try to be colorblind or gender blind doesn't have to mean that someone thinks "all is well,"
It doesn't have to mean this. IME, its most common use is by those who wish to end affirmative action programmes. Some with good intent, some with ill.
quote:
Problems like police profiling don't seem to be helped by greater awareness of race, but by more of an attempt at color blindness.
IME, the greatest gains are made by forcing the police to treat people of colour by the same standards they treat white people.
quote:
and partly because I think nothing promotes acceptance and understanding among people better than knowing the person first and the labels later.
I halfway agree. What has helped the LGB part of LGBT is exactly what you say. As out people become part of a community and are seen to be the same as everyone else, they are more likely to be accepted as such.
However, transgender are much less common, so most people's exposure is going to be on the telly. So getting people to understand is very much an active exercise.
Another point is that vast parts of our countries are not very integrated. So direct, prolonged encounters are not happening.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
" African American"
This one can be hilarious. White Americans are so afraid of saying black, that they will apply this to anyone who is black, regardless of origin. Including people from the UK, West Indies and even Africans.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
" African American"
This one can be hilarious. White Americans are so afraid of saying black, that they will apply this to anyone who is black, regardless of origin. Including people from the UK, West Indies and even Africans.
Some white Americans, yes. But we're not all that stupid. And "black" still gets used a great deal, both by whites and by blacks.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
]Well then explain why saying that the nuclear family has been a force for oppression - which is not a unique idea, both academics and ordinary activists have said so - is so threatening to cishet people, many of whom are not part of nuclear family setups? It's a bit pathetic really.
"Cishet." What I find pathetic is your overriding need to label everyone, sometimes with old labels sometimes with brand new ones, all based on what their naked bodies look like and what they do with them in the privacy of their own homes. Why does it matter?
How is this working toward an open minded inclusive society? How does this contribute to seeing people as full individuals with talents and brains and not as purely sexual objects?
You do realize that your labels are never going to include everyone don't you? Will you be dissatisfied if someone says something about marriage between lesbians, bisexuals, gays, transgenders, and queers and leaves out asexuals, AIS women, uni-testicular masochistic men in relationships with post menopausal women who like to be spanked? What does any of that have to do with whether marriage or living together is preferable?
We all should have the same rights, so why have the labels? Transgendered people who have gone through the time, money and pain to become another sex actually then deserve to be considered as that sex. They then actually ARE men or women not trans-anything. That's all anyone needs to know because the rest is history.
Surely people are more than these things. Surely what you do in your bedroom is only a part of who you are. If your whole identity is wrapped up in what you like to do in bed then life is probably going to seem meaningless at some point. All I've done in bed for the last twenty years is sleep and read. Label that.
Actually asexual people are included within queer/LGBTIA.
Why the need for such nasty homophobia and transphobia? The whole 'why do you need labels' thing is so horrible. We need labels because people silence and erase us and pretend we don't exist. It is gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender PEOPLE - already you are treating us as if we are not really humans. Cishet is just a shorter way of saying cisgender and heterosexual, it has nothing to do with labelling people and treating them as unkindly as you are treating LGBT people. Sexual orientation is not sexual behaviour, saying someone is gay (for instance) is not saying anything about what they do in bed, any more than saying someone is straight says anything about what they do in bed. If you would like to actually learn something here, the various LGBTIA threads in Dead Horses will show you how to talk about LGBTIA people like they are human. You realise that such dehumanising language literally makes LGBTIA people kill themselves, right? Especially from Christians.
Transgender (not transgendered, you don't say 'gayed' people) people are not only 'really' their gender (not sex) if they have had surgery, and it is not for cis people like yourself to tell trans people how they should identify. Identifying as trans is a way of making ourselves visible in a transphobic world - look at the US bathroom gender laws. 1 in 12 trans women are murdered in the US. Trans people (not just men and women, there are other genders too) are their genders regardless of surgery or legal status, they do not need you to tell them what they are. Trans does not say one is not really their gender, it just means not cisgender.
Right now I don't care about your labels because you've just made me sob in my front room at such vicious transphobia and have triggered my gender dysphoria which has literally made me throw up. So thanks for that. How Christian.
FYI I am non-binary transgender (not a man or a woman) and thankfully my identity is God-given and not reliant on what you or anyone else thinks.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Suggesting that we try to be colorblind or gender blind doesn't have to mean that someone thinks "all is well,"
It doesn't have to mean this. IME, its most common use is by those who wish to end affirmative action programmes. Some with good intent, some with ill.
I
I think "color-blindness" is frequently-- perhaps even usually-- advocated by well-meaning whites who truly do think it is the way to avoid racism.
It's well-meaning, but misguided. It ignores invisible privilege. One aspect of that is simply the fact that "white" (or "straight", etc) is, as noted above, in the US the "default"-- everything else is defined by it's deviation from the "norm" (even when it is soon-to-be not the norm). So when you're designing a "color-blind" program, you're almost always designing a program based on white, straight culture-- even if your intent is to be multi-cultural.
More problematically, "color-blindness" ignores the advantages that come with white/straight privilege. It advocates a level playing field before there actually is a level playing field. The metaphor often given is a race where one group has a massive advantage that gives them a significant head start. At one point someone calls them on this and a rule is enforced to stop the advantage given to the privileged group. Then the race is continued-- but at the same point from which it was stopped-- i.e. with the privileged group beginning with a huge head start. This is very much the case in the US, where many issues of race-based income disparity can be traced to the effects of slavery/Jim Crow. You can't call "color-blind" until the race has truly been restarted with all participants beginning at the same starting point.
How to get to that point is obviously a tricky question, not easily obtained. But at the very least we should recognize that just saying "let's pretend race isn't a factor" won't get us there.
[ 05. July 2016, 21:17: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Pomona, thank you for a helpful and thoughtful post.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
" African American"
This one can be hilarious. White Americans are so afraid of saying black, that they will apply this to anyone who is black, regardless of origin. Including people from the UK, West Indies and even Africans.
Some white Americans, yes.
The best example of this I've heard of was the article in the Memphis Commercial Appeal about Russian culture, which proclaimed that Pushkin, the poet laureate of Russian literature, was African American.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Speaking as someone covered by whatever the current set of initials is, (and seriously, every single time I get involved in any kind of group around my sexuality the terminology has changed - when I was growing up queer was an insult and the group I am currently peripherally involved with was debating whether we're covered by QUILTBAG), I think that it is unreasonable to vilify Twilight's views when she is explicitly arguing that everybody should have the right to be treated with equal dignity and respect.
No one can be an expert on everything, the politics and terminology of identity / gender / sexuality are changing extremely rapidly - people first language is better, getting the terminology right is better, but the fundamental values being expressed are far more important.
This is a discussion board, not a safe therapeutic space, we can not both have robust debate and avoid the possibility of triggers. Using one's own reactions rhetorically, to silence the voices of those with whom one profoundly disagrees, seems wrong to me.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Right now I don't care about your labels because you've just made me sob in my front room at such vicious transphobia and have triggered my gender dysphoria which has literally made me throw up. So thanks for that. How Christian.
I am torn between the genuine sorrow I feel for your reaction and the wish to put things into proper perspective. When you feel up to it, I would appreciate your participation here. It is not out of anger I post the continuation there, but I would like to address you personally, but where others can perhaps benefit.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Double post for a messed up link.
Here is the correct one.
ETA: I HATE the 120 second delay.
It is for slow thinking people with poor typing skills.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Re labels, possibly helpful is this CBC article: LGBTQ acronym an ever-growing shortcut for hugely diverse community.
It discusses the use of general terms like "diversity" and sometimes unwieldy acronyms: quote:
[In the past] Pride Toronto — went with LGBTTIQQ2SA: "a broad array of identities such as, but not limited to, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, intersex, queer, questioning, two-spirited, and allies." This year, organizers appear to have eschewed the acronym in promotional materials, which instead tout "the history, courage, diversity and future of Toronto's Pride community."
Though I tend to like the conclusion of the article which suggests that descriptions can be to help others understand others, or to put a label on them, but "If you're coming from a place of love, I can feel that." (which is RuPaul Charle's analysis)
I'm still wondering how this applies to the topic "live together, never marry?"
[ 05. July 2016, 23:10: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Host Hat On
Pomona
Your pain is recognised and I am sorry for it.
It does not give you a free pass here. You are ignoring a Host's ruling. You are experiencing a personality conflict (Commandment 4). Standing orders are that you work it out in Hell or drop it. You cannot continue it in Purgatory.
Other Shipmates.
I appreciate your concerns and wish to help. But please leave this difficult situation to H & A now.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Host Hat Off
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
LGBTTIQQ2SA
And the sound of rolling eyes could be heard from Vancouver to Halifax.
[ 06. July 2016, 01:51: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...: I'm still wondering how this applies to the topic "live together, never marry?"
'This' - meaning the discussion including feminism, gender identity, and social power - applies because they are part of the social changes of "live together, never marry."
Think of it this way: there are bright lines and blurry lines. Marriage has bright lines of defined relationships, including terms and roles such as father-in-law and mother-in-law. (English is impoverished in this compared with other languages, which have precise terms for "co-mothers-in-law" for example.) Bright lines are useful in defining legal and power relationships: Who has the power to tell whom what to do?
The shift of bright lines into the blurry lines of cohabitation, common-law marriage, partnerships, and other forms of relationship is simply because they work better for some people. It should be noted that marriage, which is evolving out of patriarchal systems, included a lot of bright-line power relationships which were oppressive. A mother-in-law could tell a daughter-in-law what to do, and expect to be obeyed because of the bright-line social view of their defined relationships.
So, to address more directly the questions of the OP: quote:
Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner?
No, you don't. Sorry. It is a loss to you to not have a term and role expectations, as the new ones are still emerging. It seems society has decided on a cost-benefit analysis that the cost to you of blurry-line relationships (lack of clarity of expectations, personal longing for a clear term and role) is offset by the benefit of fewer hierarchical, patriarchally-derived, oppressive bright-line relationships.
In some ways I'm sympathetic to the angst: What are my expectations and responsibilities to my adult child's partner? Should I loan them money? etc. Mostly I'm not, though, as I think the shift to blurry-line relationships is an aspect of broader liberation. If you're in what Croesos calls an unmarked category, it can be hard to see that. Indignant protest based on one's personal qualities ("Well I would never be THAT kind of father-in-law!") fails to recognize that there have been a lot of 'those' kinds of in-laws.
quote:
Why does it seem to be offensive to ask an unmarried couple about marriage?
As previously noted, because it indicates that you think their blurry-line relationship is inferior. That tends to make people bristle.
quote:
If you're ready to live together, why not marry?
Why marry? is the better question. Sometimes a wedding is viewed as a kind of spackle for a crumbling relationship. Like spackle, it doesn't bear the load very well.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
LGBTTIQQ2SA
And the sound of rolling eyes could be heard from Vancouver to Halifax.
OK, so here is the thing. LGBT+ or LGBTQ covers everyone and directly references the vast majority of humanity. However it does miss many of the subtleties within those specific letters and rolls up many different identities within the Q. So people feel left out, and this is bad in groups that have a high rate of suicide and other harm.
But I kind of agree with you on the alphabet soup approach. It seems tailor-made to be mis-typed or misspoken and then offend someone. And it is awkward as hell.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
So, to address more directly the questions of the OP: quote:
Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner?
No, you don't. Sorry. It is a loss to you to not have a term and role expectations, as the new ones are still emerging. It seems society has decided on a cost-benefit analysis that the cost to you of blurry-line relationships (lack of clarity of expectations, personal longing for a clear term and role) is offset by the benefit of fewer hierarchical, patriarchally-derived, oppressive bright-line relationships.
Do you really think most people who decide to live together WBOC really think in such terms? It sounds like projecting the thoughts of the more self-conscious patriarchy-fighters onto plain old people just doing what seems best to them at the time.
I doubt 80% of people who live together without getting married think in terms of lowering the number of "hierarchical, patriarchally-derived, oppressive bright-line relationships." They're just living together because they desire to be with one another, and not getting married because they don't see a need to, or had bad experience with marriage, or something. But the syllable soup you introduced is not even on the horizon of their thought. (Nor need it be.)
They are very unlikely to be consciously fighting the patriarchy, or trying to reduce well-defined relationships. They probably don't give fuck about either of those things. Cohabitation is not limited do the liberal socially-aware.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But I kind of agree with you on the alphabet soup approach. It seems tailor-made to be mis-typed or misspoken and then offend someone. And it is awkward as hell.
The problem is manifold, but here are some thoughts.
1. It can't be used. Nobody is going to remember and consistently reproduce a ten-letter acronym, nor know how to say it in speech.
2. It's still not completely inclusive. Even the monstrosity I quoted leaves out some people, who will rightly be offended because the acro is meant to be all-inclusive and yet leaves them out.
3. It's not how language works. It bucks the tide of simplification. Eventually it would get clipped and we're right back to people feeling left out.
4. Nobody will remember what all the letters stand for (which makes it harder to memorize). Thetasexuals may feel good that there's a "T" in the list for them, but is that going to make people mindful that there are thetasexuals when they start talking about inclusiveness and intersectionality and all the other important issues surrounding human sexuality?
Some other term is needed, clearly, if LGBTQ or LGBT+ aren't good enough. One that doesn't name some people and leave others out. Because you just can't include everybody and still have a word that is usable in everyday conversation, print media, text messaging, etc. People already are substituting things like "the alphabet soup" for the actual acronym. Which is far more derisive of thetasexuals than having their letter left out of the ever-growing monster.
_______
* "Thetasexual" is being used here as a placeholder for any person who feels their sexuality is left out of the acro as here given.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Alphabet soup, as I used it, is derisive towards the awkward nature of the long acronym, not towards anyone included in it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
So, to address more directly the questions of the OP: quote:
Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner?
No, you don't. Sorry. It is a loss to you to not have a term and role expectations, as the new ones are still emerging.
Don't care about this. For me, it's not at all about whatever relationship society thinks I ought to have with the person (or people?) who is currently shagging one of my children, it's about the expectations that my children have.
quote:
In some ways I'm sympathetic to the angst: What are my expectations and responsibilities to my adult child's partner? Should I loan them money? etc.
This is answerable, though, I think. It's a question for your child - do your child and his or her partner(s) intend the arrangement to be permanent? If so, then it's functionally marriage, whatever names they choose to use to describe their relationship, and whatever baggage they think those names import. Otherwise, it's not.
Now, it's entirely possible that you might develop a close relationship with your child's current love interest simply because you like them as a person - but that's a different question.
I suppose that for me, the reason that brightening the blurry lines matters is that I would expect to maintain a relationship of sorts with a child's spouse in the event that they divorced. I would not expect to maintain such a relationship with an ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
For me, it's not at all about whatever relationship society thinks I ought to have with the person (or people?) who is currently shagging one of my children, it's about the expectations that my children have.
Well, then, it's not really about marriage v. co-habitating then. Because even if they married, the clearer social definitions of their status would not answer your question re what their expectations of your relationship to your adult child's partner. If this thread has shown us anything, it's how much diversity there is in how people view what being "married" means.
I get your concern-- I've got almost a phobic distaste for being in a position with unclear role expectations. I love to inhabit clearly defined social roles-- whether it's wife, pastor, mom, teacher, student, friend. I don't do well in ambiguous social situations. But we've gotta accept that much of life is like that, so better learn to deal.
The only definitive way you can know someone's role expectations is to ask. But asking in an intrusive way with implied judgment is going to be counter-productive to what I assume your goal to be: to avoid offense. There are probably some good ways to ask the question ("what would you like me to call you?") as well as some not so good ways ("why don't you get married?"). Having a safe space like this to vet the questions was a smart idea IMHO.
But even then, expectations can be elusive and so very very subconscious that even in a very transparent, open dialogue people may not be in touch with those expectations enough to articulate them.
But again, that goes to the broader questions of just communication and undefined role expectations ("blurry lines") in general, rather than anything specific to married v. cohabitating.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
lB--
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, so here is the thing. LGBT+ or LGBTQ covers everyone and directly references the vast majority of humanity.
Ok, I need help with this one, please. How is "the vast majority of humanity" covered by that? Is your thinking that most people aren't straight?
(Apologies for any ignorance/denseness on my part.)
Thx.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
