[UUPoly-L] Addressing a common argument of anti-poly rhetoric

["Desmond Ravenstone" <gentlemonster@lycos.com>]

   LT and other bloggers seem to be winding down, but in the process of their
   discussion, they have focused on how poly relationships would hurt
   children.

   The line of argument is that, with the stresses of having to juggle two or
   more co-spouses, the children in a poly household will inevitably become
   neglected or exposed to negative influences. I thought it would be helpful
   both to understand this argument, and ways to counter it in conversations,
   formal presentations, etc.

   It is clearly no use to argue from example, as LT and others have
   encouraged so many to embrace the "fallacy of the beard" (see note below).
   However, there are analogies which could be used to raise questions:

   Imagine applying this reasoning to work situations. When both parents
   work, significant amounts of time are taken away from child-rearing;
   similarly, single parents who work more than 40 hours a week deprive their
   children of valuable quality time. Additionally, the stresses of two
   people working full-time, or one person working more than full-time to
   make ends meet, can create a negative home environment for children. Given
   the line of reasoning as applied to poly families, should we declare
   two-income couple-headed families inherently harmful to children? Should
   the same be said of families headed by overworked single parents? Should
   families where one or both parents work *and* pursue secondary or
   post-secondary education be included in this, given similar problems of
   less time and more stress (plus money going to pay for said education)?
   Aren't parents who devote more time to their careers than their kids
   really being selfish?

   A predictable (and IMHO reasonable) response is that, instead of
   condemning hard-working parents who are only trying to build a better life
   for their children, communities and employers should assist them with day
   care, flex-time, tuition loans and grants for parents pursuing education,
   counseling and workshops to help working parents deal with stress, and
   other tools. To which we can ask: "Why not provide similar tools to
   families headed by parents headed by poly parents?" Their response: "How
   can you compare having multiple partners with hard work?" Then we point
   out that having partners -- whether one or more than one -- always
   involves hard work, and if parents can be given the choice to work as much
   as they want, then why can't parents have the choice of as many committed
   intimate relationships as they can handle?

   Another example is family size. The more children that parents have, the
   more time and attention they have to devote to them. Plus there is the
   added stress of children getting sick and spreading it to the other kids,
   siblings fighting, saving for college, and so on. But, we all argue,
   communities should be empowering large families, not condemning them. And,
   we can reply, if we can do that...

   Additionally...
   a) Families where the parents own more than one house, or other property
   requiring time and resources to maintain.
   b) Parents deeply committed to a pastime such as art, literature, sports,
   etc.
   c) Parents committed to their child's particular talent (acting, music,
   sports) by devoting their free time to cultivating and promoting it.

   And I'm sure there are other examples, but in every case the question
   boils down to this: Do people have the right to choose a riskier, more
   difficult path towards a greater overall benefit (real or perceived)? Why
   condemn Risky Path X and not Risky Path Y or Risky Path Z, if all three
   have comparable potential risks, benefits, and means of ameliorating risks
   and maximizing benefits?

   *****

   Now, onto the "Fallacy of the beard" as applied to arguments against
   polyamory. The name comes from the example of nitpicking on how many hairs
   someone must have on their face before it constitutes a beard. Similarly,
   anti-poly activists try to corner us into dismissing our real-life
   experiences as "stray hairs" (insignificant exceptions) which do not make
   up a "full beard" (persuasive argument).

   While it may sound like a way of saying that anecdotal evidence does not
   constitute sufficient proof, its strength comes in ignoring the very
   premise of the anti-poly argument -- that polyamory is inherently
   detrimental.

   Rather than confront and revise/abandon their basic argument that poly
   living in inherently harmful, they attempt to dismiss examples of
   non-harmful/beneficial polyamory:
   a) "You may be doing well now now, but sooner or later the negative
   effects of your lifestyle will catch up to you."
   b) "Just because you have an exceptional constitution which can handle
   your having multiple partners does not mean that the rest of the
   population should do so."
   c) "You can argue that you engage in polyamory responsibly and ethically,
   but when your children see what's going on,..."
   d) "The burden of proof is on *you* to show that recognizing multi-partner
   relationships is warranted, necessary and sociall responsible."

   All of these are attempts to circumvent the logic that our experiences
   present in response to their initial absolutist thesis:
   1) If it is claimed that P (polyamory) is iH (inherently harmful),...
   2) ... and Px (an example of polyamory) is shown to be ~H (not
   harmful),...
   3) ... then the initial thesis of (1) is disproven and P is ~iH.

   Even if you response by saying: "Okay, polyamory isn't inherently harmful,
   but it does carry a higher risk of harm," you are basically abandoning the
   previous thesis for a weaker one -- and opening the door to asking how
   societal bias against poly affects the associated risks of harm. So,
   instead of conceding this point, LT and company have attempted to devise
   the strategy of "dismissing the exception" -- arguing that Px "means
   nothing" and therefore does not disprove their initial thesis.

   In my blog on Myspace, I alluded to a sarcastic way that my father taught
   logic to my brother and me. He would put forward the argument that: "All
   odd numbers are prime"; he then ran down the list of odd numbers: "1 is
   prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is an experimental error,..."
   and so forth. Eventually I would pose the question: "How many experimental
   errors do you need to show that your statement is false?" That's where my
   mother stepped in, pointing out that, yes, you only need one "exception"
   to an absolute rule to disprove it -- but when someone desperately wants
   to believe something, no amount of logic or evidence will persuade them
   otherwise. I'm afraid that's the case with LT. All we can do is learn how
   best to respond to those arguments, and to remind them that ultimately we
   are talking about the real lives of real people in real family situations.

   Desmond Ravenstone

   ********************

   http://www.lulu.com/gentlemonster
   http://www.myspace.com/desmond_ravenstone

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   Get all the Hottest Artists on Your Cell Phone - Plus 10 Bonus Tones
   Today!
   Find Your New Ringtone at Lycos Mobile.