Thoughts on a Poly Paper

A G+ friend posted this article, and asked my opinion on it. I found my little soapbox and the energy to climb on it for a little while, and I thought I would share the results with you. Life has been hectic here, the reinstatement of coverage means I am running back and forth, making, breaking (stupid flares!) and arranging appointments.

The following has only been edited to remove social niceties and make more sense as a blog post. The meaning, if you can find any, has remained intact!

__________

The poly article from the UK can be found here.

Hi! Sorry it took awhile to get to this, but I wanted to give it some solid attention. Thanks for asking me what I think, here! I am going to make some notes as I go, so I do not forget anything.

Interesting that the author assumes that while thoughts regarding sexuality get attention in poly relationships, that issues regarding class, education, race, gender, religion and other issues do not. I would argue that all those issues get the same, if not more attention as they do in a monogamous relationship. But a lot of the ins and outs of relationships in general are like that, included in the basics of all intimate partnerings but not often touched upon in poly specific materials.

I started to feel odd and left out by the author, fitting only a few of the list of presumed identities being thrust upon me by assumption, you know? The thing about poly families is that they continue to identify with the communities they already know and embrace, whether that be the LGBT/QUILTBAG communities or a group held together by racial ties or religious affiliation... You do not stop being what and who you are just because you discover that your ability to romantically love is qualitative rather than quantitative.

Something I thought the author ignored is that most literature available on the mass market on sexual differences starts by coming from largely middle class white men and rarely women. The first literature I saw about folks that are trans was about folks that were white, gay and white, pervy and white, intersexual and white... Since that is still the narrative that is most accepted by the people that hold the keys to the mass market, that is what we largely get. The Internet was the same at first, but now anyone that can access the 'net can write about their experiences. And maybe even get taken seriously.

After reading more, I think that perhaps I was initially too harsh on the author of this work. They are criticizing the existing material for obvious failings when it comes to addressing issues important to everyone outside of the “standard human” or even “standard USian” type: racial justice, actually economic opportunity equality, gender issues… Now, on the other hand, had these white (really, we are still using “European stock?” 1895 called and wants that term back!), middle class, mostly male, mostly college educated, mostly Christian, mostly Western folks tried to include issues of which they had no real familiarity - we would have pilloried them for speaking for other folks. 

Rather, we need to make room for those voices, I think, to speak to their own truth. What they could have done was include voices with experiences vastly different from their own, and they are responsible for not doing just that.

I think the truth is that we come to polyamory on our own, out in whatever world we live in, and some are able to act on that because we have more societal freedom, and some are free to act on that because they are already so despised, so disregarded that one more “sin” does not matter. Maybe there are a lot more of us out there, unable to do so much as a Google search free of fear of being discovered, rapidly unemployed and ostracized or even physically hurt or killed. It is true that “family focused” jerks like Rick Santorum have started using poly families as their new big scary thought for the USian public, and folks are not ready to take that kind of bigotry seriously because we are all seen as a kind of outlier, by desire or by sentence.

I think that the author was brave, taking a little understood and derided part of her life and using it for a professional paper. Kudos to her! And it is a good read, with solid information. By being a woman writing about polyamory, she is contributing a work that is not as “mainstream” as some of the authors she sites. One thing I have noticed about various movements is that they purchase mainstream acceptance by being represented by mainstream bodies. These white, middle-classed, college educated men putting out poly works will help gain mainstream acceptance. I would like us to be a solid community accepting of all comers first, but it rarely seems to happen that way.

(Thanks for giving me a heads up! I liked the piece, and feel honored that you asked for my take. I hope you do not regret it now! - my personal note to the person asking for my opinion. I explained that I might use my side of the conversation as a blog post and the idea was met happily.)

__________

I hope that you, dear Reader, do not regret how you spent your time just now. If you have thoughts about my thoughts about this paper, please feel free to discuss them below. I do respond to comments and I like getting them (for the most part, the Blogger filters help a lot with unwanted spam!). 

One True Cause

I find little credibility in the One True Cause argument. Someone else has probably come up with a better name for it, but a quick tour through Derailing for Dummies has left me unsatisfied. Make no mistake, I find D4D otherwise very useful and like it quite a lot! Give me a minute, and I think you will find that "One True Cause" is used frequently as a derailing and discrediting tactic.

To clear this up, I do not mean "cause" as in cause and effect, although that is also a logical fallacy. I am using "cause" in One True Cause or 1TC or OTC to mean a situation, bigotry, societal failure, civil rights issue... the sort of causes we gather around to solve, resolve, improve, remove, make better. The intent is to make your cause less worthy of time, attention, and effort than their cause.

The One True Cause is this: why are you talking about/working on/devoting time and energy to X cause when Y cause is more important, more universal, more pressing and/or more personal? The OTC shares mental real estate with the Oppression Olympics, although the person committing the logical fallacy need not believe or be touched by either cause, they just want to be done with yours.

A recent example I have seen is this paraphrase of mine: how can you talk about Glenn Greenwalt's pal getting detained and the chilling effect it may have on free speech when Greenwalt is a lying jerk and other people have been treated worse? Here, I respectfully posit that one can care about the assault on free speech via detention of loved ones no matter how much one may dislike the people in this particular story and even still care about the dishonesty and ethical questions raised by the same persons. I can think that GG looks like a lying jerk and still beat the drum of free speech.

A common OTC argument is often brought up regarding US drone bombing. We mustn't concern ourselves with the innocents murdered in the never ending search for "top Al Qaeda" operatives because that would diminish our ability to kill the "right" people in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan... over there. Except that innocents murdered in a bloody attempt to exact justice is how this all started, whether you think it started with 9/11 or the use of Afghani people as chess pieces to fight a Cold War with the USSR, or, or, or...

Admittedly, it may be hard to drag our focus from getting through our own days, fighting the oppressions heaped upon us, scraping to put what we can on the table at dinner time for our loved ones to give a damn about people exploded out of existence while doing the same damn thing over there... someplace far away, some place filled with brown people struggling the same struggles and (just like us) never earned the need to fear random death from above. 

As a disabled person raising a ruckus, I see the One True Cause fallacy all the time. How can I complain about the lack of accessibility at the local Pride Fest when that just give critics more fuel to try to shut it down? Well, I can tell you that as bisexual woman with disabilities I could not cross streets because beer booths had deliberately blocked curb cuts. How can I, a poor white lady, spend time on race issues when I should be focused on poverty? Well, my daughters go to the same schools that are neglected because there are not enough white faces in those schools for the people in power to care about them. Even if they went to lily white schools, better education for "inner city" or "deprived" schools means more skilled workers and smarter citizens which increases economic opportunity for everyone. 

Often One True Cause is used with some legitimate feeling, worry that this other cause will suffer if people are not singularly devoted to it. People and their issues can be complex, and OTC often ignores the intersections that exist in social justice, in caring about freedom and real opportunities for all peoples. But just as we can love our parents, our significant others/spouses, our children, and our friends and extended family - I believe that we can care about more than one cause with legitimate depth of feeling and commitment. Some of us must do so, whether we ever wanted to or not. Just inside our walls here at home we are directly concerned with disability, neuro-atypicality of various types, feminism, poverty, school quality/funding, the Affordable Care Act/healthcare accessibility in general, religious freedom, racism (our neighbors and our children's peers are more melanin gifted than our family), QUILTBAG rights and issues... 

OTC is just one more minor oppression. OTC is other people telling you what causes they think you should support. OTC is just one more way to exert control, but worse since is is usually done by social justice folks to other social justice folks. So it is likely to be listened to, likely to bypass the filters we put in place when we are dealing with folks that could not care less about making the US a more just place. This often comes from people we respect, trust - folks we value in some way.

So you see, we had to learn to juggle many interests and that is just a brief overview. OTC has no place in our social justice cosmology. OTC is different than picking the battles that mean something to you: I get that.  One True Cause desires to denigrate other causes (others' causes?), and that is not cricket. On a good body day, I can actually chew gum, pat my head and rub my tummy all at the same time. But do not hold your breath waiting for a good day, I have less than a handful of those a month right now. The ones I get - I know how to spend them!

So Much Depends on a Little Red Plus Sign

Most social networks have a method by which you can show your approval of a post. Whether it is "plussing" on G+, "liking" on Facebook, "favoriting" a post on Twitter, pushing/trusting/liking on Sulia, and pinning and/or heart'ing on Pinterest you have a way of saying "I approve of this." The problem is, there is no way of adding why you approve of a post, and I want to break down why I give things this silent mark of approval:

• I may like your post because I believe the same thing, word for word. This is the damn for me, although it seems it is the one that folks always assume is meant when you plus.
• I may favorite your tweet because I am glad you said a thing, whether I agree or not. I may just believe that your thought needs to be out there in the ether. I believe in fostering intelligent dialog when possible.
• You and I may be friends, so I plus your stuff that makes sense in order to encourage you to express yourself. 
• I may appreciate the opportunity to see a product or idea. Maybe I did not even know it existed until you posted it.
• I may pin something just because it is pretty or suits my aesthetics.
• Maybe you posted something that took skill or bravery to post and I noticed.
• Sometimes I may actively disagree with a post, but appreciate the way something was said. Maybe it was an innovate way of looking at the issue, or had a personal touch that made the post evocative. Maybe it was just damn good writing. This goes back to fostering intelligent dialog when possible.
• Maybe you were just damn funny and I lol'ed.
• Every once in a while, I will fat-finger a post and plus/like/pin something I did not mean to. You know what I mean, you are looking at one thing and press the button you think will favorite your target but instead you ended up "liking" something horrible. Sometimes, it takes someone pointing it out to find out that it even happened. This is the most rare of cases, and I will immediately correct, if possible, when asked about it. Because I am a grown-up and can admit I screwed up.
• Liking/+1'ing are good ways to keep track of a post as it develops. I may just want to see what happens next...

I bet you experience this problem: someone sees that you put your stamp of approval on one thing a person wrote and now you are responsible for everything that person ever wrote, ever. There are a lot of reasons to stamp someone's post, but people will usually assume that you did it for whatever reason makes them the most angry. I ask first before I assume, and it is my opinion that other folks should ask first too. We should not let assumptive, aggressive anger overrule common sense. 

On most services such as G+, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Sulia you can undo your stamp of approval. Usually you can just click the same button again, the label on the button usually changes to reflect this functionality, but not in every case. If you no longer wish to have approved a post, a group, or a person - you can change your approval status to reflect that, to a degree. I rather like Buzzfeed's method of giving the user several adjectives to choose from to voice an opinion on a piece.

Words and Political Correctness

I had the opportunity the other day to participate in a terrific community discussion about political correctness, specifically referencing things like A-line ribbed tank tops, the use of the word "rape" in a gaming environment and others. And I want to explore the idea of political correctness here. No links or anything, just trying to iron out some ideas and see what they are.


I want to set some hyperbole aside. When we talk about social political correctness, we are not talking about laws at any level. There are no Jack Booted Language Police. We are simply dealing with social norms. And those can very from nation to nation, culture to culture, house hold to house hold. And just like every other social norm, we are all constantly juggling one to another as we go through our days and our lives.


No law, no physical impediment keeps you from using a politically incorrect word or phrase or idea in conversation or media. The gripe is that if you do value your right to a word over the potential offense or harm it may cause, your may be viewed as someone that does exactly that. The problem is not the use of this word or that word. They can still be used. The only penalty is that your peers may, may see you as someone that values their right to a word over their hurt, offense, or harm. 


The social price of political incorrectness is being thought of as an asshole. 


I want you, Gentle Reader, to know that I did not start over here, although I wish I had. I started over there, demanding my rights to words and other people's right's to words. I am a greater fan of the 1st Amendment than the 2nd Amendment - and I value them both quite highly.


I had not considered every one else's right to exist at least with my indifference, if not any benevolence. But those other people, they should not have to guard themselves every time they are among other people. They should not walk in fear that I may throw them back to an abusive marriage or a sexual assault just because they had to go to the store. They should expect the world to be as indifferent, neutral, or benevolent to them as you expect it to be for you.


What happens when you are brought to someone else's pain is that you are being trusted with it. If I say to you that a particular phrase or word is upsetting to me, you have two decisions to make:

• You either believe, or not. I have a responsibility to be honest, and I will probably even try to be patient if my situation is not one that you could have been expected to be tuned into. But then you either believe me, and take me at my word that something is offensive to me personally or maybe I say that as one of their number, some of these folks are offended by that. You can educate yourself as much as you like later, that would actually be great. But in this moment, it is simple trust issue.
• You either care, or not. While that may sound cruel to the person being asked to stop offending, upsetting, or harming - I guarantee that it is less cruel then being asked to forgive or ignore someone while they knowingly do harm to you whenever, however they see fit, forever. Because whatever burden you carry is simply unimportant to them. 

That is it. 

• If you believe and care, you work to change a language habit (you do not really "lose" a word in any actual sense), and you show a wounded someone that there is at least one person out there not willing to knowingly hurt them further. 
• If you care but don't believe, you start asking or teasing about exactly that harmful thing, maybe discounting the very idea, or act like the stated harm is over-reacting. Hey, maybe you ask friends and strangers around you if this thing "is really offensive?" Because: 1st Amendment. You may change your language use if you do research that confirms, or other people concur.
• If you do not believe and do not care, then you will change nothing about your habits, maybe dig into the wound a little bit, you know, to prove it is not there. Because: "plenty of people go through more and aren't crying." 
• If you believe and do not care, then hopefully you are apathetic, but maybe you dig into that wound often and deep, you know, to help them "get over" their sensitivity. Maybe you envision yourself as some sort of Devil's Advocate. As if the person trying to trust you has not had enough of true adversaries.

There are other options, and many other factors that may influence a particular situation, but I am comfortable with those four as likely types of outcomes.


I have said before, and I truly believe it: "Political correctness is a quick and easy guide to avoid being seen as an asshole if you are not, in fact, an asshole."

I truly do not understand how being conscientious of another person's history, or that of a group of people, is walking on eggshells, or some other surrender of personal power. Why is it a problem to have to think about these people with a problem? Surely they have to consider you. Why is it not a instead a strength to be in a more grounded, solid group free or nearly free of such angst, pain, distrust, suspicion and harm?

Poverty and Rand

The following contains my ramblings on some posts elsewhere about Ayn Rand, her views on poverty, and particularly how her ideological followers (whether they call themselves Objectivists, Randians or not) view and treat poverty. I have edited these slightly to make them make sense on their own, and for some grammar errors, or for clarification. Additions will be marked {thus}.

If you want to see a simulation of how an Objectivist society would go down, play Bioshock.

Enjoy!

~~~

When I first read (Ayn) Rand as a teenager, I loved her "perusing your own skills/ideals/whatnot to your own perfection" world view, but even then had trouble with her economics. As an adult, I do think there are things in her writing worth considering. My enormous trouble with her comes not from the fact that she has a economic ideology that I vehemently disagree with, but from what she does with it and how she expresses it. She had a fanatical hatred for the poor, calling them parasites and insisting that the world would be better off if they were removed from it (not lifted out of poverty by opportunity). That is more than a simply economic philosophy. She had a pathology about it. The irony is that when in dire straits herself she made use of the same safety net that she pontificated so loudly against.

And do not get me started on her Objectivist followers, they are such a hot mess it would take days to spell out everything wrong with their stances.

~~~

{On hating someone for being poor and apparently slothful.} Okay, but does that make any sense, either? Hating someone for something like that? And the very idea "people who were happy to remain poor" is bizarre, it makes no sense and has no reality in it whatsoever. But she did seem to think that such existed, and were a blight.

You are fine - I did not see it as semantics. And this is why it is important to really analyse literature, particularly when the author is openly promoting a particular world view. The saddest thing about Rand (besides the hypocrisy of her later life) is that it is really difficult to have a conversation like this where we talk about the ideas and do not degrade each other.

~~~

You cannot expect people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they have no boots.

In one hundred percent of my lived experience and anecdotal experiences I have been able to pursue, there is always a reason for not being able to take advantage of an opportunity. No one, I assert, no one is "happy" being poor. Some are making the best of their circumstances, and good for them if they can. Usually, people making that claim have no idea of the chasm between being on state sponsored assistance and becoming self-sufficient. Often, the job openings available cannot help bridge that chasm. But now we are getting past common perceptions of poverty and getting into the reality of it, and I do know know if this is a venue where that is desired, or if it is a part of the conversation worth getting into right now.

~~~

Eh, given that most state's assistance is not enough to live on, let long live a life of leisure, I have a hard time believing that. Are their some cases of welfare fraud? Sure. But the myth of the Welfare Queen, living a life of luxury courtesy of the state is just that: a malicious, ridiculous, and downright stupid myth. But the Randians eat it up and have made it a central pole in their tent of misguided self righteousness.

~~~

Ah, I see now. Thanks for the discussion, but you have some dead give a ways in your last two posts that lead me to believe we are not going to actually get anywhere with further discussion.

Because we could get into the weeds and prove that if you have children to care for, or conditions that require constant medical coverage, or any number of situations that make the gap between getting your first couple of paychecks and when the state cuts you off simply too wide for too many people - but you illustrate above that such would not really mean much to you. {I have done the math before, for multiple states - usually the new aid for an additional child will not even cover diapers, let alone be "extra money" in any way.}

I have lived, and am currently, living these situations. I am finding this a unique phenomena, the linking of morality to financial success or lack of it. It is bizarre. Not to knock you, specifically, I mean that it is a weird cultural thing. 

~~~

{The conversation mostly devolved at that point. Reading the above, the poster took what I said and turned it into a tirade against them. It was a beautiful illustration of both missing the point, and turning logic into a personal attack. The poster also was apparently unaware that I am disabled, that that, yes indeed, they were talking about me. But this issue was bigger than that.}

Hmm, in my two paragraphs I do not see any twisting or manipulating - or even any of the extrapolation that would allow such. Hell, I did not even say that you were one of the people comfortable punishing poor people, only that perhaps you could educate me on their mindset. You do protest too much, I think.

And it is about me. It is about you. It is about everyone. It is about the poor. It is about the people that have been poor. It is about the people that will be poor. It is about everyone. And so, yeah, I am pretty damn uncomfortable with blanket moral judgments towards "the poor" as a group. Especially "slothful" - because that has to come from someone that has never been poor, because being poor is damn hard work. I do find it a convenient landmark, though, because the people that throw the word around obviously are completely disconnected from the work of just being poor. The running around, the appointments, the paperwork, the requirements just to receive any kind of aid - they do make you work for it. Hell, Disability alone takes an average of two to three years to resolve a case.

Most USian households are one paycheck, one health calamity, one car accident, from suddenly being poor. Do they deserve your moral indignation? No, they do not. But it is far too common to find your own "Welfare Queen or King" and decide that this morally bankrupt person is the face of the poor. Never mind that most aid is given to white house holds that simply had that one paycheck calamity. Or were downsized. Or became disabled. The true face of poverty in the US is us, you and me, not your "morally bankrupt" scapegoats. Much like in war, the dehumanization of the poor allows us to treat them as this other deserving of what ever they get. lucky for the scraps thrown their way.

There is a preponderance of evidence supporting the fact that we are the face of poverty. Or more appropriately, that you cannot generalize the way you would like to. If I thought I could change your mind, LMGTFY {Let Me Google That For You}, but you can easily do so if you want. You could have done so before this discussion, or during it.

Side note: I do not know about all states, but in mine if you are working on a 4 year degree you are disqualified from receiving help maintaining your household from the state. I know that for a been there, done that fact. Because your full class load keeps you from looking for full time work - so you are not eligible for aid. How is that for irony? Again, the result of policy makers having no contact with reality.

Help for ALL Surviving Domestic Abuse

Republicans Back out of Domestic Violence Help


All they had to do was renew the damn bill.


In a discussion online about this article it was mentioned that undocumented working women that were being abused would be "rewarded" by the proposed changes. I got really angry and responded:


... REWARDED?!? REALLY? What kind of "reward" is it when you have to get your ass jacked, sometimes for years, before you can get it? And lawbreakers?!? Give me a goddamn break! We have protections in place for mass murderers on DEATH ROW but some lady that came here for a better life and can't navigate the multi thousand dollar convoluted piece of shit we call an immigration system is fair game?!? Holy hell!


So then I took a deep, cleansing breath while waiting on a reply. I am not posting the other side of the conversation here because it was casual and there was no shared understanding at the time that I might extrapolate on my responses for my blog.  


Okay. Human rights are not contingent on being a citizen. Full stop. And there is nothing about DV/DA help that actually makes one a citizen. So no crime is "washed away." Offering a minuscule number of undocumented women visas only gives them a bit of temporary help, moving one issue out of the current stressors while one works ones way out of the living hell that is domestic abuse and/or violence. It will not make these women citizens, not by a long shot, and to argue that it is a reward of any kind is disingenuous at best, and  out and out lying manipulation at worst.

I am so fucking tired of people acting like a accident of birth that put them within the fabricated and stolen USian boarders some how makes them special or better than other people. Or that other human beings are some how less human or their suffering is less important because their moment of birth put them (usually, in these arguments) south of an artificial line made of murder and theft. The fact that we are having these "rights of birth" arguments in a country founded on the idea that birth status does not make one better or worse than any other person is disgusting.

My point above, about mass murderers, is not to say the people in our prison system should not be protected from the tyranny of the system or their peers. They should be subjected to the cruelty of their sentences but not a jot more. My point was to juxtapose one "law breaker" with another, highlighting the differences in protection each receive. One has been convicted of taking lives, the other committed, or their parents committed, a crime of geography.


But there is nothing in our laws that makes one birth better than another, something that seems to be missing in every one of these arguments I have seen. If your main focus regarding help for the survivors of domestic violence is illegal immigration, I have not no help for you. I believe that this serves as an illustration of exactly how much some people are being distracted from the issues at hand. All people surviving domestic abuse, assault, and violence deserve help. No one deserves to live in fear: man, woman, child, citizen, non-citizen, cis or trans, disabled or TAB. This is about human rights, and and what we do about it will show who we are as a country.

On the Word "Lame"

Transcript below the break.

Thank you to everyone that has sent me notes about this video. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated by me.

It is nice to be back.

Relaunch!

Hallo! It has been quiet some time, no? Well, the silence coming from my little corner of the Web is done. This is my official relaunch of my blog! While my silence has been due, in part, to laziness; I have also been writing a lot, and thinking even more.


What do I want PatientC to be? I want it to be a tool for making the world a better place - even if it is just a tiny bit, a teaspoon at a time. I want to talk about what is on my mind freely, without fear. I have spent no small amount of time looking at the history of social justice bloggers that have been bullied out of the Internet and talking with my family about the possibility of that sort of thing coming to our door.


I have decided that I will post about whatever is on my mind. So not every post is going to be about disability or related things or maybe even social justice. 

• I may talk about gaming, especially video games. 
• Hell, I have a stack of energy drink reviews - I could justify those as being a defense mechanism against both my internal fatigue and the fatigue produced by a couple of my medications. But I also simply like them, and like trying new ones. 
• When my hands can manage it, I knit, so that may come up. This is an election year, so you can bet that I am going to talk about that. 
• I may post consolidations of the days action items for you to participate in or not as you choose. 
• Other social justice stuff will definitely come up. So you can expect posts on sexism, sexual orientation, race, class/poverty...
• I am studying Buddhism, so expect that to be a subject that comes up with some regularity.

The truth of the matter is that I am a human being, along with being a woman, being disabled, being bisexual, dealing with poverty* issues, or any number of things. So a lot of things come up in my life and in my addled brain, and I may share any of them with you at any time.


If you see a story, issue, or item of some sort, and you think I might be able to write about it in a worthwhile way, let me know.


I will be expanding my efforts to include more regular writing, some videos, and expanding my concept of what I can do and share with you.






*I am a poor person lucky enough to live as a middle class person. It is complicated.