![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have been avoiding PolyMatchmaker for several months because I got tired of the bullshit arguing and I had to get some distance because online arguing just should not cause that much emotional reaction. Y'know, winning at the Special Olympics and all that.
But I went back the other day simply to post a link to the article I was in recently, because I think it needs more coverage. It was, overall, a very well-done piece and I think there needs to be more news coverage like that and more attention to those articles already in existence.
Among the couple of "well done" comments I got, one person thanked me for the way I presented myself and referenced that type of poly person that James commented on in the article ... the kind of person who is so far out there that they actually hurt the cause by being "out".
Usually, I get up on my high horse about how we should all be "out" if we can afford to for the very reason that some people cannot afford to. I look upon this as my personal responsibility as a social creature to protect those who can't protect themselves. If we all choose not to protect others, then there will be no one there to protect us when and if we should ever need protecting. So I rant and rave about how we are obligated to put aside our personal preference for "privacy" and create a united front to protect those who can't join us.
But when we are discussing politics, not physical battle, the tactics are somewhat different. It requires some planning, careful use of resources, to accomplish our goal. Simply standing up en masse and throwing ourselves upon the opposition does not have the diplomacy that is required when attempting to change people's minds and prejudices. Sometimes, we need to handle the situation with kid gloves, delicately, not with brute force. Believe me, knowledge that tact and gentleness might soothe the savage society when really, I just want to smack sense into someone, or at least remove them from the gene pool if I can't physically beat sense into their heads ... knowing I have to be gentle does not make me happy. But, if I truly will attract more flies with honey than vinegar, I will use the method most likely to accomplish my goals.
So, when this person commented that it was nice to read about a polyamorous person and not want to cringe after reading, I went on a slightly different track than my usual "you owe it to us to come out!" rant. I don't think this post is quite finished, it could use some refining, but here is what I had to say about that:
My goal is, with poly activism as it is with all my causes, to merely educate people on what it is and, just as importantly, what it is not; and through that education, to remove the "threat" aspect of something "different" so that people can make their own choices based on their wants and needs, not on fear.
To that end, what is required is a delicate balance of "normal" meets "different", IMO. People trying to introduce a potentially scary concept to a larger culture need to be "normal" enough that the spokesperson does not frighten or threaten the larger society. If society is frightened or threatened, the message will not be heard. But at the same time, the messenger can not be so mainstream that the larger society will misunderstand or make allowances only for those who are white-washed with mainstream but continue to segregate those farther outside of mainstream but still the "same type".
I am lucky that my appearance is exceedingly non-threatening in many ways (of course, sometimes that works against me, but that's another fight). I am also lucky that I have a natural talent, that I have cultivated and exploited, to adapt elements of many different kinds of cultures and groups, all without compromising myself since these are merely facets of my own person. Throw in a decent vocabulary and the ability to mimic several different accents that will help my audience to trust me, and you have a person that a subculture can use as a resource.
This particular issue happens to be near and dear to my heart, although I have fought for others' rights that didn't also apply to me. I am glad to use my skills to further understanding and help fight against discrimination and I am hopeful that I can do justice to the task I have set for myself on behalf of people who cannot fight for themselves.
Too many people continue to be persecuted just for being different. Anyone who feels even the slightest bit of pressure to keep any part of themselves secret is a victim of this persecution, whether they realize it or not. It's not a question of privacy, because I whole-heartedly agree with personal privacy. It's a question of whether we can make our own choices.
Anyone who has a job that allows a small picture on his desk of his wife and kids, but who refrains from putting an equally small picture of his girlfriend and her husband on the same desk, not even because he knows he'd get fired, but because he fears some nebulous fear that *something bad* could happen, has had his ability to make choices removed from him. He is not choosing to remain "private" about his life because it's no one else's business. If he felt that way, he wouldn't put his wife's picture up and he wouldn't wear a wedding ring to announce to the world that he is married. He wouldn't chat casually with his co-workers about his weekend spent fishing or taking the kids to see the latest Disney movie, because those mundane details could also include his girlfriend and her husband and are not generally considered "private" in casual society when the details include a societally-acceptable mate. No, he is hiding behind his right to be "private" out of fear of retribution. And I think that's just wrong.
So, my goal is to create a society where he can choose to put that picture on his desk, or not, based only on what he feels is private material, not based on any fear or concern for how other people will think of him or his situation. My goal is to create a society where a woman can have two loving husbands and the children that result from the union are not in danger of being seperated from their functional family by fundamentalist grandparents. My goal is to be an adult woman with several loving partners and not be branded a slut or accused of single-handedly increasing the STD epidemic. My goal is for a woman to be acknowledged as a full and complete member of her family, not hidden away behind the smokescreen of "nanny" or "roommate". My goal is for a man to be invited to his boyfriend's annual family reunion/BBQ along with his boyfriend's wife, to be welcomed and accepted as an equal part of the family that normally only the wife would receive. My goal is for people to divulge as much or as little information about their lives as they desire, living honestly and without fear.
To that end, I continue to learn about what it means to be a "Media Contact", to learn how to tell the true news media from the sensationalism-seeking yellow-journalists, to give the information that I feel is important for the public to know without either compromising my and my lover's privacy or giving the public any ammunition to set us backwards in our progress.
I am not mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. I am poly, but I prefer an open, inclusive network style which doesn't seem to be the most popular choice. I am into BDSM, and more than that, I have kinks that I hear are not common even within that culture. I am a tomboy, which isolates me from many women because I don't think like a woman, and also isolates me from many men because I think like a man but look very much like a woman and that confuses them. I work in a male-dominated industry, I do manual labor, and I like it, and that confuses those who believe the American Dream is to improve one's lot in life, make the big money and sit in a cushy chair behind an impressive desk with a view of the skyline. I also work in a highly technical field that requires higher education and networking skills where who you know can put you in that cushy job faster than what you know, and that offends the blue-collar hard-day's-work brand of honor. I am foul-mouthed, short-tempered, stong-minded, athiest, independent, and intelligent, yet sweet- and feminine-looking. Basically, I threaten just about every faction of "mainstream" society there is and quite a few subcultures too.
But that will not help the cause. So, without compromise, without lying or hiding who I am, I try my best to emphasize those parts of me that are non-threatening so that the message is what gets heard, not the messenger. I believe this is the most efficient way to meet my goals and I believe it is one of the more beneficial methods for the group at large. Sometimes the message gets lost when the messenger is too busy screaming "I'm so different from you, that you can't hope to understand me!" Not that they are doing it intentionally, but for a human to stop fearing that which it doesn't understand, the human needs some way to understand that which it fears, to understand and to empathize. It's hard to fear something you understand and empathize with. It is this gap we must bridge.
I hope that I have accomplished this with this interview and I hope to refine my methods as I continue along. I hope to become an acceptable "spokesperson" while continuing to make it clear that there is no one spokesperson. I speak for us all only to demand our rights, not to claim we are all the same. I hope I can live up to my goals.
But I went back the other day simply to post a link to the article I was in recently, because I think it needs more coverage. It was, overall, a very well-done piece and I think there needs to be more news coverage like that and more attention to those articles already in existence.
Among the couple of "well done" comments I got, one person thanked me for the way I presented myself and referenced that type of poly person that James commented on in the article ... the kind of person who is so far out there that they actually hurt the cause by being "out".
Usually, I get up on my high horse about how we should all be "out" if we can afford to for the very reason that some people cannot afford to. I look upon this as my personal responsibility as a social creature to protect those who can't protect themselves. If we all choose not to protect others, then there will be no one there to protect us when and if we should ever need protecting. So I rant and rave about how we are obligated to put aside our personal preference for "privacy" and create a united front to protect those who can't join us.
But when we are discussing politics, not physical battle, the tactics are somewhat different. It requires some planning, careful use of resources, to accomplish our goal. Simply standing up en masse and throwing ourselves upon the opposition does not have the diplomacy that is required when attempting to change people's minds and prejudices. Sometimes, we need to handle the situation with kid gloves, delicately, not with brute force. Believe me, knowledge that tact and gentleness might soothe the savage society when really, I just want to smack sense into someone, or at least remove them from the gene pool if I can't physically beat sense into their heads ... knowing I have to be gentle does not make me happy. But, if I truly will attract more flies with honey than vinegar, I will use the method most likely to accomplish my goals.
So, when this person commented that it was nice to read about a polyamorous person and not want to cringe after reading, I went on a slightly different track than my usual "you owe it to us to come out!" rant. I don't think this post is quite finished, it could use some refining, but here is what I had to say about that:
My goal is, with poly activism as it is with all my causes, to merely educate people on what it is and, just as importantly, what it is not; and through that education, to remove the "threat" aspect of something "different" so that people can make their own choices based on their wants and needs, not on fear.
To that end, what is required is a delicate balance of "normal" meets "different", IMO. People trying to introduce a potentially scary concept to a larger culture need to be "normal" enough that the spokesperson does not frighten or threaten the larger society. If society is frightened or threatened, the message will not be heard. But at the same time, the messenger can not be so mainstream that the larger society will misunderstand or make allowances only for those who are white-washed with mainstream but continue to segregate those farther outside of mainstream but still the "same type".
I am lucky that my appearance is exceedingly non-threatening in many ways (of course, sometimes that works against me, but that's another fight). I am also lucky that I have a natural talent, that I have cultivated and exploited, to adapt elements of many different kinds of cultures and groups, all without compromising myself since these are merely facets of my own person. Throw in a decent vocabulary and the ability to mimic several different accents that will help my audience to trust me, and you have a person that a subculture can use as a resource.
This particular issue happens to be near and dear to my heart, although I have fought for others' rights that didn't also apply to me. I am glad to use my skills to further understanding and help fight against discrimination and I am hopeful that I can do justice to the task I have set for myself on behalf of people who cannot fight for themselves.
Too many people continue to be persecuted just for being different. Anyone who feels even the slightest bit of pressure to keep any part of themselves secret is a victim of this persecution, whether they realize it or not. It's not a question of privacy, because I whole-heartedly agree with personal privacy. It's a question of whether we can make our own choices.
Anyone who has a job that allows a small picture on his desk of his wife and kids, but who refrains from putting an equally small picture of his girlfriend and her husband on the same desk, not even because he knows he'd get fired, but because he fears some nebulous fear that *something bad* could happen, has had his ability to make choices removed from him. He is not choosing to remain "private" about his life because it's no one else's business. If he felt that way, he wouldn't put his wife's picture up and he wouldn't wear a wedding ring to announce to the world that he is married. He wouldn't chat casually with his co-workers about his weekend spent fishing or taking the kids to see the latest Disney movie, because those mundane details could also include his girlfriend and her husband and are not generally considered "private" in casual society when the details include a societally-acceptable mate. No, he is hiding behind his right to be "private" out of fear of retribution. And I think that's just wrong.
So, my goal is to create a society where he can choose to put that picture on his desk, or not, based only on what he feels is private material, not based on any fear or concern for how other people will think of him or his situation. My goal is to create a society where a woman can have two loving husbands and the children that result from the union are not in danger of being seperated from their functional family by fundamentalist grandparents. My goal is to be an adult woman with several loving partners and not be branded a slut or accused of single-handedly increasing the STD epidemic. My goal is for a woman to be acknowledged as a full and complete member of her family, not hidden away behind the smokescreen of "nanny" or "roommate". My goal is for a man to be invited to his boyfriend's annual family reunion/BBQ along with his boyfriend's wife, to be welcomed and accepted as an equal part of the family that normally only the wife would receive. My goal is for people to divulge as much or as little information about their lives as they desire, living honestly and without fear.
To that end, I continue to learn about what it means to be a "Media Contact", to learn how to tell the true news media from the sensationalism-seeking yellow-journalists, to give the information that I feel is important for the public to know without either compromising my and my lover's privacy or giving the public any ammunition to set us backwards in our progress.
I am not mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. I am poly, but I prefer an open, inclusive network style which doesn't seem to be the most popular choice. I am into BDSM, and more than that, I have kinks that I hear are not common even within that culture. I am a tomboy, which isolates me from many women because I don't think like a woman, and also isolates me from many men because I think like a man but look very much like a woman and that confuses them. I work in a male-dominated industry, I do manual labor, and I like it, and that confuses those who believe the American Dream is to improve one's lot in life, make the big money and sit in a cushy chair behind an impressive desk with a view of the skyline. I also work in a highly technical field that requires higher education and networking skills where who you know can put you in that cushy job faster than what you know, and that offends the blue-collar hard-day's-work brand of honor. I am foul-mouthed, short-tempered, stong-minded, athiest, independent, and intelligent, yet sweet- and feminine-looking. Basically, I threaten just about every faction of "mainstream" society there is and quite a few subcultures too.
But that will not help the cause. So, without compromise, without lying or hiding who I am, I try my best to emphasize those parts of me that are non-threatening so that the message is what gets heard, not the messenger. I believe this is the most efficient way to meet my goals and I believe it is one of the more beneficial methods for the group at large. Sometimes the message gets lost when the messenger is too busy screaming "I'm so different from you, that you can't hope to understand me!" Not that they are doing it intentionally, but for a human to stop fearing that which it doesn't understand, the human needs some way to understand that which it fears, to understand and to empathize. It's hard to fear something you understand and empathize with. It is this gap we must bridge.
I hope that I have accomplished this with this interview and I hope to refine my methods as I continue along. I hope to become an acceptable "spokesperson" while continuing to make it clear that there is no one spokesperson. I speak for us all only to demand our rights, not to claim we are all the same. I hope I can live up to my goals.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 7/10/07 11:52 pm (UTC)From:My own personal preferences tends to be somewhere in the middle. I don't go around broadcasting who I sleep with, what I do when I have sex with them, or how many lovers i currently have; but I'm willing to talk about it to those who ask me or are curious about such things in general.
*I first heard of this dichotomy in the SCA: reporters will invariably look for the woman with the skimpiest garb, the person with the weirdest-and-therefore-least-historically-accurate clothing, or the newest and therefore least informed person, rather than the calm, collected, knowledgeable, and quiet member-of-forty-years. The former makes for better TV, or for better quotes. The latter makes for more accurate - and duller - reporting.
no subject
Date: 7/11/07 03:15 am (UTC)From:The Queen (for example) makes for more entertaining television, it doesn't do anything to help quell the fears of those who are in a position to make policies that affect us. But the less-threatening person with the facts about homosexuality (or any subculture, really) isn't nearly as entertaining.
You are correct that either end has not disappeared. I get into lots of discussions about the importance of being "out" with people who take the side of "if no one knows who I sleep with, how could it become a problem?" Well, the thing is, it can become a problem in several different ways, some of which might be totally surprising. First of all, if everyone hides being poly so that no laws and no social attitudes get changed, then one is forever in danger of being "found out" and therefore losing power over their life. Jobs and family and even freedom can be taken from them. But a more sinister loss is possible, and
I actually don't go around broadcasing who I sleep with or what I do when I have sex with them either. If anyone cares to notice, the reporter mentioned me having two boyfriends and two partners who are "undefined". None of that explains who is performing what actions on whom and I think the reality of who is doing what to whom might be a bit surprising given some people's assumptions about what makes a "relationship". But it is important for people to know that there *are* more than just one partner for me to make my point ... that polyamory is not something to be feared and therefore discriminated against. Of course, some would claim that I do go around "broadcasting" by the very fact that I was in a newspaper article and allowed my real name and face to be shown. But my opinion stands ... I did not say who did what sexual act to whom, and it's no more public than anyone having their picture and name in the paper to announce their upcoming marriage. Wedding engagements are a public announcement of their chosen relationship style. I just happen to be using my public announcement of my chosen relationship style as a tool to help achieve public acceptance for alternative relationships :-D