![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the problem with polynormativity
Jan. 27th, 2013 10:22 pmI was asked to address my thoughts on this article. Since Facebook doesn't lend itself to long post or responses on articles, I brought it here instead.
I can't post about this stuff on Facebook, I have relatives on there!
Start: the for "norms" of polyamory (and my experiences thereof)
1. Polyamory starts with a couple.
Yes, this is the most common relationship model in Western society. However, my first poly relationship started when I was a single woman dating a married man. Yes, there was a coupling present, but I was only dating the husband, not the husband and wife together.
I don't know how common that is. It seems like more often there is an established couple (culturally recognized as such, doing the whole monogamy thing and either married or long-term shacked up) who decide to explore polyamory together (for better or for worse).
2. Polyamory is hierarchical.
Admittedly, I used to think in these terms. I live with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
glitch25, we share bills and a household and responsibility for two cats. To mainstream society, we are as good as hitched. So on the surface it would appear that we are, in fact, primary partners.
But in reality, we don't operate that way. Our respective relationships withsolcita and milo93 (yes, K is on Livejournal now!) are not "secondary". No, we don't live together currently, but that doesn't make any of us less important to the other.
3. Polyamory requires a lot of rules.
It can. Seeing asglitch25 and I are only dating one other person each, the rules are not really...excessive? At least I don't think so. There's safer-sex rules present but I think of that as a sort of 'given'. Pregnancy isn't a concern but we all get tested regularly--as someone who grew up with AIDS being an ever-present fear (let alone any other number of diseases out there) it doesn't even seem weird to me to get tested every year. Being turned away from blood donation was a new experience though...
Push comes to shove, though, there aren't a whole lot of rules involved in my life. I'm good with that--too many rules is just...well, it's a problem for me.
To quote the article, "Rules have an inverse relationship to trust. They are intended to bind someone to someone else’s preferences. They are aimed at constraint. I will limit you, and you will limit me, and then we’ll both be safe.
When two people are well matched in their values, and have strong mutual trust, they don’t need a rule to know how they’ll each behave.
So, if I'm interested in someone and they have a ridiculous number of rules with their primary about how the relationship can operate...it's a bit concerning.
4. Polyamory is heterosexual(-ish). Also, cute and young and white. Also new and exciting and sexy!
Because heterosexuality is still the 'norm'. Yes, let me finish rolling my eyes here.
I identify as bisexual, however my partners are all currently male-born and male-identified. I'm good with this. Polyamory isn't all horny men and hot bi babes engaged in passionate threesomes (sorry to disappoint).
As for the others...cute? Some would say so. Not everyone is into chubby chicks though.
Young? Er...I said goodbye to my 20's awhile ago.milo93 and solcita have also said goodbye to those years. glitch25 welcomed in 40 not too long ago. Youth is a relative thing.
White? Yeah. So much so I burn to a crisp in the summer if I'm not careful.
New, exciting, and sexy? I've been poly for...well, I started my first poly relationship nearly ten years ago. Exciting? Eh, maybe. Sexy? Well, I like to think any romantic relationship would be if you're doing it right.
So.
In short--yes, the media portrays polyamory in rather...mainstream standards. I don't agree with it, since the mainstream monogamous model is not one that applies to how I live. But I understand why people use mainstream models for comparison: it's what we can relate to. It's the cultural norm and it makes it easier to understand that which falls out of the norm. Still, it bugs me. It's like when people used to ask gay couples "so, which of you is the 'man' and which is the 'woman'?". Never mind that there's SO much wrong with that statement--it's a way for people to try to understand an unfamiliar relationship structure.
Still...this brings us to the problems with that structure.
First problem: the polynormative model is kinda sucky.
Perhaps it might work well, maayyybe, for some people—I won’t go so far as to say it never does. But it comes with a host of problems for everyone involved, most notably for those who are in the least empowered place within the relationship structure, but also in more subtle and insidious ways for those who are in the more privileged place within the structure.
Yeah...this kind of goes without saying. The structure is okay if you're part of the primary couple, but if you're a secondary who hasn't put her foot down it can leave you short if you don't speak up for yourself. Not that I speak from experience or anything ;).
Second problem: The media presents these poly norms as, well, norms. As The Way to Do Poly.
At best, there’s a brief mention that some people do some other sorts of poly, over there, and we don’t really understand them, or maybe those forms are way too complicated for us to summarize in a 1,000-word article. (Triads! Quads! Families! Ws and Xs and Greek alphabets and constellations and ecosystems! It’s all so scary. Also, math is hard.)
But most of the time, “other” (ooh, look at that construction!) kinds of poly aren’t mentioned at all. There is this one way, and here it is! Isn’t it grand? So brave! So unusual! Really quite cutting-edge, don’t you think? … Well, whether intentionally or otherwise, this approach ends up flattening the picture of poly, depicting it in its simplest, most dumbed-down terms. It’s no coincidence that this version of poly is the one that most closely resembles the one-man, one-woman, marriage-based, nuclear-family kind of relationship we’re all told we’re supposed to aspire to. All we’ve done is relax the rules around sex a bit, and unlike (but not that unlike) swingers’ ethics, we’re also “allowing” the emotional end of things to actually exist, in the sense that we have relationships and are not “just” schtupping. But not the kind of relationships that actually “threaten” (?!) the “primary” couple. Not with people who, God forbid, make demands on one or both of us, or challenge us, or want to have a say in how things go. Then, well, they get the boot, because primary comes first! We can all agree on that, can’t we? Of course. That’s the essence of primary relationships. It’s pretty clear in the terminology. One person comes first, the others do not. This is why the mainstream can wrap its head around poly at all: because understood this way, it’s really not that fundamentally different from monogamy.
I like to think that any media coverage is good media coverage. But this couldn't be further from the truth, and besides my own relationship structure doesn't really have a great deal of media support. So, does this mean I'm Doing Poly Wrong? Well, fuck. And here I thought I was just trying to be happy for a change.
The primary/secondary model works for people who are trying to blend into a monogamy-embracing society. If it works for those people, great. However, for those of us who cannot honestly embrace this structure there exists an additional barrier to social acceptance.
Third problem: This whole state of affairs screws over the newbies.
Not only the newbies, but those of us who aren't out yet and have no idea how to go about the coming-out process.
I can't post about this stuff on Facebook, I have relatives on there!
Start: the for "norms" of polyamory (and my experiences thereof)
1. Polyamory starts with a couple.
Yes, this is the most common relationship model in Western society. However, my first poly relationship started when I was a single woman dating a married man. Yes, there was a coupling present, but I was only dating the husband, not the husband and wife together.
I don't know how common that is. It seems like more often there is an established couple (culturally recognized as such, doing the whole monogamy thing and either married or long-term shacked up) who decide to explore polyamory together (for better or for worse).
2. Polyamory is hierarchical.
Admittedly, I used to think in these terms. I live with
glitch25, we share bills and a household and responsibility for two cats. To mainstream society, we are as good as hitched. So on the surface it would appear that we are, in fact, primary partners.But in reality, we don't operate that way. Our respective relationships with
solcita and milo93 (yes, K is on Livejournal now!) are not "secondary". No, we don't live together currently, but that doesn't make any of us less important to the other.3. Polyamory requires a lot of rules.
It can. Seeing as
glitch25 and I are only dating one other person each, the rules are not really...excessive? At least I don't think so. There's safer-sex rules present but I think of that as a sort of 'given'. Pregnancy isn't a concern but we all get tested regularly--as someone who grew up with AIDS being an ever-present fear (let alone any other number of diseases out there) it doesn't even seem weird to me to get tested every year. Being turned away from blood donation was a new experience though...Push comes to shove, though, there aren't a whole lot of rules involved in my life. I'm good with that--too many rules is just...well, it's a problem for me.
To quote the article, "Rules have an inverse relationship to trust. They are intended to bind someone to someone else’s preferences. They are aimed at constraint. I will limit you, and you will limit me, and then we’ll both be safe.
When two people are well matched in their values, and have strong mutual trust, they don’t need a rule to know how they’ll each behave.
So, if I'm interested in someone and they have a ridiculous number of rules with their primary about how the relationship can operate...it's a bit concerning.
4. Polyamory is heterosexual(-ish). Also, cute and young and white. Also new and exciting and sexy!
Because heterosexuality is still the 'norm'. Yes, let me finish rolling my eyes here.
I identify as bisexual, however my partners are all currently male-born and male-identified. I'm good with this. Polyamory isn't all horny men and hot bi babes engaged in passionate threesomes (sorry to disappoint).
As for the others...cute? Some would say so. Not everyone is into chubby chicks though.
Young? Er...I said goodbye to my 20's awhile ago.
milo93 and solcita have also said goodbye to those years. glitch25 welcomed in 40 not too long ago. Youth is a relative thing.White? Yeah. So much so I burn to a crisp in the summer if I'm not careful.
New, exciting, and sexy? I've been poly for...well, I started my first poly relationship nearly ten years ago. Exciting? Eh, maybe. Sexy? Well, I like to think any romantic relationship would be if you're doing it right.
So.
In short--yes, the media portrays polyamory in rather...mainstream standards. I don't agree with it, since the mainstream monogamous model is not one that applies to how I live. But I understand why people use mainstream models for comparison: it's what we can relate to. It's the cultural norm and it makes it easier to understand that which falls out of the norm. Still, it bugs me. It's like when people used to ask gay couples "so, which of you is the 'man' and which is the 'woman'?". Never mind that there's SO much wrong with that statement--it's a way for people to try to understand an unfamiliar relationship structure.
Still...this brings us to the problems with that structure.
First problem: the polynormative model is kinda sucky.
Perhaps it might work well, maayyybe, for some people—I won’t go so far as to say it never does. But it comes with a host of problems for everyone involved, most notably for those who are in the least empowered place within the relationship structure, but also in more subtle and insidious ways for those who are in the more privileged place within the structure.
Yeah...this kind of goes without saying. The structure is okay if you're part of the primary couple, but if you're a secondary who hasn't put her foot down it can leave you short if you don't speak up for yourself. Not that I speak from experience or anything ;).
Second problem: The media presents these poly norms as, well, norms. As The Way to Do Poly.
At best, there’s a brief mention that some people do some other sorts of poly, over there, and we don’t really understand them, or maybe those forms are way too complicated for us to summarize in a 1,000-word article. (Triads! Quads! Families! Ws and Xs and Greek alphabets and constellations and ecosystems! It’s all so scary. Also, math is hard.)
But most of the time, “other” (ooh, look at that construction!) kinds of poly aren’t mentioned at all. There is this one way, and here it is! Isn’t it grand? So brave! So unusual! Really quite cutting-edge, don’t you think? … Well, whether intentionally or otherwise, this approach ends up flattening the picture of poly, depicting it in its simplest, most dumbed-down terms. It’s no coincidence that this version of poly is the one that most closely resembles the one-man, one-woman, marriage-based, nuclear-family kind of relationship we’re all told we’re supposed to aspire to. All we’ve done is relax the rules around sex a bit, and unlike (but not that unlike) swingers’ ethics, we’re also “allowing” the emotional end of things to actually exist, in the sense that we have relationships and are not “just” schtupping. But not the kind of relationships that actually “threaten” (?!) the “primary” couple. Not with people who, God forbid, make demands on one or both of us, or challenge us, or want to have a say in how things go. Then, well, they get the boot, because primary comes first! We can all agree on that, can’t we? Of course. That’s the essence of primary relationships. It’s pretty clear in the terminology. One person comes first, the others do not. This is why the mainstream can wrap its head around poly at all: because understood this way, it’s really not that fundamentally different from monogamy.
I like to think that any media coverage is good media coverage. But this couldn't be further from the truth, and besides my own relationship structure doesn't really have a great deal of media support. So, does this mean I'm Doing Poly Wrong? Well, fuck. And here I thought I was just trying to be happy for a change.
The primary/secondary model works for people who are trying to blend into a monogamy-embracing society. If it works for those people, great. However, for those of us who cannot honestly embrace this structure there exists an additional barrier to social acceptance.
Third problem: This whole state of affairs screws over the newbies.
Not only the newbies, but those of us who aren't out yet and have no idea how to go about the coming-out process.
(no subject)
Jul. 4th, 2011 05:00 pmSekhet-Maat damaged by arson. I'm glad no one was hurt, and I'm REALLY hoping this was just some random attack.
rain, rain, go away...
Mar. 29th, 2011 07:21 pmAllergy season has hit so hard that even the cats are sneezing.
Took M into Auburn after work to drop off his truck so he can get a new windshield. Because long drives in the rain during rush hour are just *so* awesome.
We ended up taking a detour to look at a house that M had found on a listing today. Huge place (5bd/3ba), less than 250k. Which meant my first thought was "ok, what's wrong with it?".
Definitely a fixer-upper. With a view into a neighbor's yard full of dead cars and a rusted RV. Well, that answered *that* question. Doesn't matter, we renewed our lease for another year anyways and it's still a buyer's market. So next year we'll be looking at a potential mortgage instead of a lease. Later than we'd wanted to since we wanted to do it this year, but some things are worth the wait.
Took M into Auburn after work to drop off his truck so he can get a new windshield. Because long drives in the rain during rush hour are just *so* awesome.
We ended up taking a detour to look at a house that M had found on a listing today. Huge place (5bd/3ba), less than 250k. Which meant my first thought was "ok, what's wrong with it?".
Definitely a fixer-upper. With a view into a neighbor's yard full of dead cars and a rusted RV. Well, that answered *that* question. Doesn't matter, we renewed our lease for another year anyways and it's still a buyer's market. So next year we'll be looking at a potential mortgage instead of a lease. Later than we'd wanted to since we wanted to do it this year, but some things are worth the wait.
Spirit Day
Oct. 4th, 2010 01:10 pmOriginally posted by neo_prodigy at Spirit Day 
It’s been decided. On October 20th, 2010, we will wear purple in honor of the 6 gay boys who committed suicide in recent weeks/months due to homophobic abuse in their homes at at their schools. Purple represents Spirit on the LGBTQ flag and that’s exactly what we’d like all of you to have with you: spirit. Please know that times will get better and that you will meet people who will love you and respect you for who you are, no matter your sexuality. Please wear purple on October 20th. Tell your friends, family, co-workers, neighbors and schools.
RIP Tyler Clementi, Seth Walsh (top)
RIP Justin Aaberg, Raymond Chase (middle)
RIP Asher Brown and Billy Lucas. (bottom)
REBLOG to spread a message of love, unity and peace.
neo_prodigy at Spirit DayIt’s been decided. On October 20th, 2010, we will wear purple in honor of the 6 gay boys who committed suicide in recent weeks/months due to homophobic abuse in their homes at at their schools. Purple represents Spirit on the LGBTQ flag and that’s exactly what we’d like all of you to have with you: spirit. Please know that times will get better and that you will meet people who will love you and respect you for who you are, no matter your sexuality. Please wear purple on October 20th. Tell your friends, family, co-workers, neighbors and schools.
RIP Tyler Clementi, Seth Walsh (top)
RIP Justin Aaberg, Raymond Chase (middle)
RIP Asher Brown and Billy Lucas. (bottom)
REBLOG to spread a message of love, unity and peace.
[Error: unknown template qotd]
Aww...look. A writer's block topic I can actually talk about.
Sure, anyone should be able to bear children if they want to. We already tried restricting people from having children based on various "undesirable" factors (including race), but when a certain European dictator heard about the eugenic philosophies being discussed in academic circles...well, we all know what happened next.
But if you want to *raise* said children...well, we already have restrictions in place. No beating/starving/neglecting them. Feed, clothe, nurture, educate, keep them healthy and make sure they grow into adults who aren't complete and total assholes. And remember, they call it the hardest job in the world for a goddamn reason--so don't look so shocked when someone says they don't want them.
Yeah, there's some folks who don't like children at all (or the people who choose to have them). Aslupabitch put it, that vitriol is a backlash against the social privileges afforded to parents. Until recently, there really wasn't much of a social place for people without children in this culture; that's a relatively new phenomenon. Because that pretty well sums it up. Until the advent of birth control, if you had no children it was assumed you were either 1) unmarried or 2) incapable. Voluntarily not having children has only really been an option for a couple generations, and is still uncommon enough to be regarded with suspicion (especially if you're female. Dammit.).
Supposedly, I'm supposed to be having a biological clock going off soon. Mine peaked about a decade ago and has been declining ever since.
Aww...look. A writer's block topic I can actually talk about.
Sure, anyone should be able to bear children if they want to. We already tried restricting people from having children based on various "undesirable" factors (including race), but when a certain European dictator heard about the eugenic philosophies being discussed in academic circles...well, we all know what happened next.
But if you want to *raise* said children...well, we already have restrictions in place. No beating/starving/neglecting them. Feed, clothe, nurture, educate, keep them healthy and make sure they grow into adults who aren't complete and total assholes. And remember, they call it the hardest job in the world for a goddamn reason--so don't look so shocked when someone says they don't want them.
Yeah, there's some folks who don't like children at all (or the people who choose to have them). As
lupabitch put it, that vitriol is a backlash against the social privileges afforded to parents. Until recently, there really wasn't much of a social place for people without children in this culture; that's a relatively new phenomenon. Because that pretty well sums it up. Until the advent of birth control, if you had no children it was assumed you were either 1) unmarried or 2) incapable. Voluntarily not having children has only really been an option for a couple generations, and is still uncommon enough to be regarded with suspicion (especially if you're female. Dammit.).Supposedly, I'm supposed to be having a biological clock going off soon. Mine peaked about a decade ago and has been declining ever since.
I've read article after blog after article about the unfair expectations placed on me because I'm female. Walk feminine, talk feminine...oh, wait, that's a song. But really...I'm supposed to be pretty, be slender, spend hours on my hair and makeup, wear cute and horribly uncomfortable shoes, find a nice man to make me a Mrs., have the proper number of babies and not let my figure go, balance work and family...the list goes on and on. After awhile I stopped giving a shit about what society expected of me as a female because society's not the fucking boss of me. I burp, I fart, I'm fat and I'm unmarried. But I pay taxes and obey the laws of the land so I figure I'm fulfilling my social obligations just fine and dandy.
So something I never really thought about was the expectations society places on men. I mean, why should I? I'm not a guy, and besides they supposedly have all the power and control in society so how hard can it be?
( with great power comes great responsibility )
So something I never really thought about was the expectations society places on men. I mean, why should I? I'm not a guy, and besides they supposedly have all the power and control in society so how hard can it be?
( with great power comes great responsibility )
Dred Scott and the 14th Amendment.
Someone needs to remind the teabaggers that trying to change the Constitution to restrict, rather than grant the rights to others in the country doesn't go over well.
I've heard rumor that some (R)'s also would like to push so that only those whose parents are both citizens (or whose fathers are citizens) would be permitted to keep their citizenship. Uh...my bio-dad is not and never will be a U.S. citizen. So you can probably imagine I have a problem with this and I really hope they are just rumors.
Though-it's not exactly easy to change the constitution. It may be a conservative wet dream to add an amendment defining marriage, but that still hasn't happened yet (and with Prop 8 being declared a no-go, I'm feeling pretty good that it won't). So now "illegal immigration" becomes the new hot topic du jour, since they've realized banning gay marriage is a losing battle.
But something tells me my face wasn't the one the conservatives had in mind when they came up with ideas like this.
glitch25 just asked me what the statute of limitations on this would be...how many generations would it go back? Because really, there's only one group of people who can claim that they deserve the land and I'm sure they'd like it back.
Someone needs to remind the teabaggers that trying to change the Constitution to restrict, rather than grant the rights to others in the country doesn't go over well.
I've heard rumor that some (R)'s also would like to push so that only those whose parents are both citizens (or whose fathers are citizens) would be permitted to keep their citizenship. Uh...my bio-dad is not and never will be a U.S. citizen. So you can probably imagine I have a problem with this and I really hope they are just rumors.
Though-it's not exactly easy to change the constitution. It may be a conservative wet dream to add an amendment defining marriage, but that still hasn't happened yet (and with Prop 8 being declared a no-go, I'm feeling pretty good that it won't). So now "illegal immigration" becomes the new hot topic du jour, since they've realized banning gay marriage is a losing battle.
But something tells me my face wasn't the one the conservatives had in mind when they came up with ideas like this.
glitch25 just asked me what the statute of limitations on this would be...how many generations would it go back? Because really, there's only one group of people who can claim that they deserve the land and I'm sure they'd like it back.http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/illinois-professor-fired-for-giving-catholic-teaching-on-homosexuality/
Wait a minute...so he pretty much states the Catholic stance on homosexuality in a class on Catholicism, and gets fired?
Aside from the fact that the RCC has never been pro-gay (nor do I ever really expect them to be), he's teaching about Catholicism. He got fired for accurately stating what the Church says about it. Yes, it would constitute 'hate speech'--but so would the stances of a few other religions when it comes to gays and lesbians (or other religions, or non-believers, etc.)
He wasn't teaching health or sex-ed. He's not setting public policy. He was teaching about Catholicism.
My head is spinning in WTF-ness. If he'd said the Catholic Church was a-ok with homosexuality, he'd be lying.
I would probably butt heads with this guy on a lot of philosophical points (the whole not being Roman Catholic myself thing), but I do support his right to teach and present the teachings of his church accurately, in the context of a class like the one he taught (Introduction to Catholicism).
Wait a minute...so he pretty much states the Catholic stance on homosexuality in a class on Catholicism, and gets fired?
Aside from the fact that the RCC has never been pro-gay (nor do I ever really expect them to be), he's teaching about Catholicism. He got fired for accurately stating what the Church says about it. Yes, it would constitute 'hate speech'--but so would the stances of a few other religions when it comes to gays and lesbians (or other religions, or non-believers, etc.)
He wasn't teaching health or sex-ed. He's not setting public policy. He was teaching about Catholicism.
My head is spinning in WTF-ness. If he'd said the Catholic Church was a-ok with homosexuality, he'd be lying.
I would probably butt heads with this guy on a lot of philosophical points (the whole not being Roman Catholic myself thing), but I do support his right to teach and present the teachings of his church accurately, in the context of a class like the one he taught (Introduction to Catholicism).
(no subject)
Jun. 19th, 2010 04:50 pmI've been seeing a lot of conversation on a recent video of a young woman assaulting a police officer.
The only thought that keeps running through my head is that it's hard for me to be anti-cop when I still vividly remember being on the phone with 911 and counting the seconds in my head, willing them to get here faster.
If you've only ever heard/read about situations where the police needed to be called, consider yourself lucky.
The only thought that keeps running through my head is that it's hard for me to be anti-cop when I still vividly remember being on the phone with 911 and counting the seconds in my head, willing them to get here faster.
If you've only ever heard/read about situations where the police needed to be called, consider yourself lucky.
Writer's Block: Carpe Diem
Jun. 11th, 2010 05:26 pm[Error: unknown template qotd]
Planning for the future? It depends on what kind of planning.
7PM EDIT: I stopped and thought about this entry and really felt like I hadn't put enough planning into it. Yes, seriously. Guess my sign.
Household/living: Well, in some ways I already decided. I made my permanent family planning decisions a few years ago (with a great deal of thought ahead of time), so no children will be coming from my body barring a major tubal failure. Likewise I won't be living with anyone who has them. So what's that house going to look like? I don't know as I've entirely decided yet. M and I have talked about getting a bigger space and eventually I would like to. There definitely won't be any more cats in the household until we have a larger space.
Financially--yes, I do this quite a bit. I worry about having to be financially dependent on others. Hell, I don't even like being financially dependent onglitch25. Self-sufficiency is a point of pride with me. And while it can suck sometimes to have to think "I can't do X or Y fun thing because I need to put money into savings" (I've been there) it sucks waaaaaaay less than "I'm absolutely fucked because I don't have emergency savings for a sudden expense/job loss/other catastrophe". I can't plan for everything but I owe it to myself and my partner to make the effort.
I think I could stay at my job a long time, but then again I said that about my last job. So we'll see.
So am I ever spontaneous? YES! Just not with things that matter. Dancing in public? Sure. Smiling at a stranger? You betcha. Picking up and moving to another country all of a sudden? Yeah not so much.
Planning for the future? It depends on what kind of planning.
7PM EDIT: I stopped and thought about this entry and really felt like I hadn't put enough planning into it. Yes, seriously. Guess my sign.
Household/living: Well, in some ways I already decided. I made my permanent family planning decisions a few years ago (with a great deal of thought ahead of time), so no children will be coming from my body barring a major tubal failure. Likewise I won't be living with anyone who has them. So what's that house going to look like? I don't know as I've entirely decided yet. M and I have talked about getting a bigger space and eventually I would like to. There definitely won't be any more cats in the household until we have a larger space.
Financially--yes, I do this quite a bit. I worry about having to be financially dependent on others. Hell, I don't even like being financially dependent on
glitch25. Self-sufficiency is a point of pride with me. And while it can suck sometimes to have to think "I can't do X or Y fun thing because I need to put money into savings" (I've been there) it sucks waaaaaaay less than "I'm absolutely fucked because I don't have emergency savings for a sudden expense/job loss/other catastrophe". I can't plan for everything but I owe it to myself and my partner to make the effort.I think I could stay at my job a long time, but then again I said that about my last job. So we'll see.
So am I ever spontaneous? YES! Just not with things that matter. Dancing in public? Sure. Smiling at a stranger? You betcha. Picking up and moving to another country all of a sudden? Yeah not so much.
to speak as he will
May. 28th, 2010 06:50 pmThe movements around PC language...well, they fascinate me. As any English major will tell you, there is not a piece of work we consider "literature" that would meet with 21st century standards of political correctness. Or more recently, the lyrics of most pop music (the bubblegum pop of the 50's and 60's is notoriously bad for this). 100 years ago people knew what the word "niggardly" meant, and used it in common language. 50 years ago "he" was a universal pronoun. 20 years ago we were "challenged". As in, I'm not short, I'm vertically challenged (or in the more extreme case-they're not "midgets", they're "little people"). Or, I'm not a bitch, I'm tactfully challenged.
Most recently (and when I say recent, I mean in the last five years or so, PC movements are slow to catch on) I've noticed a strong sentiment against using the term "lame" to mean something other than "disabled". Or "retarded" to mean anything other than mentally challenged. My own experience with PC language is as follows: during the 1990's, my mom was married to a man who was only a few generations removed from being on the paler side of a lynch mob. His parents and brothers thought nothing of telling racially charged jokes in mixed company, even when this company included non-white relatives on my mom's side of the family. Forget black vs. African American, I was just relieved when they didn't drop the n-word left and right. So I guess in some ways I find myself being rather forgiving of most non-PC language.
I view the usage of language as a form of etiquette, and will generally default to the most PC language I know of in mixed company (particularly if there are people there I don't know all that well). In private or small groups I'll follow whatever the common comfort level tends to be. To a degree, I do agree with the general statement that politically correct speech is polite speech.
Some people have complained that overuse of PC language will lead to the elimination of all speech. I don't buy it. After all, it wasn't that long ago that "shiny" only referred to the surface appearance of something. New words are adapted and re-used all the time, it's the natural evolution of language.
However, something that has always bugged me about people who insist on the most PC language possible is the element of classism involved. Generally speaking (and this is on my own experience, YMMV), the people who crowed loudest about being politically correct were college-educated, Caucasian, and generally came from one or more levels of privilege. People who didn't have their opportunities and were thus less likely to be aware of the need for political correctness (or too busy working three jobs to keep their babies fed) were looked down upon as a result. Classist much? Hell, I've had days where I envy people whose lives are so perfect and easy that they have the time and mental bandwidth to nitpick about language.
I consider it perfectly acceptable to use denigrating language in reference to yourself. So if I want to call myself a crazy fat cracker bitch, by golly I will.
Most recently (and when I say recent, I mean in the last five years or so, PC movements are slow to catch on) I've noticed a strong sentiment against using the term "lame" to mean something other than "disabled". Or "retarded" to mean anything other than mentally challenged. My own experience with PC language is as follows: during the 1990's, my mom was married to a man who was only a few generations removed from being on the paler side of a lynch mob. His parents and brothers thought nothing of telling racially charged jokes in mixed company, even when this company included non-white relatives on my mom's side of the family. Forget black vs. African American, I was just relieved when they didn't drop the n-word left and right. So I guess in some ways I find myself being rather forgiving of most non-PC language.
I view the usage of language as a form of etiquette, and will generally default to the most PC language I know of in mixed company (particularly if there are people there I don't know all that well). In private or small groups I'll follow whatever the common comfort level tends to be. To a degree, I do agree with the general statement that politically correct speech is polite speech.
Some people have complained that overuse of PC language will lead to the elimination of all speech. I don't buy it. After all, it wasn't that long ago that "shiny" only referred to the surface appearance of something. New words are adapted and re-used all the time, it's the natural evolution of language.
However, something that has always bugged me about people who insist on the most PC language possible is the element of classism involved. Generally speaking (and this is on my own experience, YMMV), the people who crowed loudest about being politically correct were college-educated, Caucasian, and generally came from one or more levels of privilege. People who didn't have their opportunities and were thus less likely to be aware of the need for political correctness (or too busy working three jobs to keep their babies fed) were looked down upon as a result. Classist much? Hell, I've had days where I envy people whose lives are so perfect and easy that they have the time and mental bandwidth to nitpick about language.
I consider it perfectly acceptable to use denigrating language in reference to yourself. So if I want to call myself a crazy fat cracker bitch, by golly I will.
Anyone looking for a job in Bellevue as a logistics coordinator? Not with SanMar, but another company that wanted to interview me on the same day I was offered my current job. Email me if you're wanting to know more, I have a copy of the job description.
(no subject)
May. 9th, 2010 10:30 pmThe people running the businesses that don't fail.
I have to admit, there is something about their way of life that sets them up for long-term success. Seems the rest of us could learn a thing or three from them.
I have to admit, there is something about their way of life that sets them up for long-term success. Seems the rest of us could learn a thing or three from them.
