Re: [UUPoly-L] UUPoly-L Digest, Vol 33, Issue 9

[P O <wild_card@sbcglobal.net>]

Laura,

I think you're on the right track here.  Labels are
things we can apply to ourselves and that others apply
to us, and everyone fills in their own meanings for
the labels they use.  That's the whole point to
racism, sexism and any other form of discrimination:
you assume a set of characteristics for a person based
on a label.  For example, a sexist could assume that a
female must be weaker both physically and mentally
then a male, as well as overly emotional, etc. etc. 
Racism makes a whole lot of assumptions as well about
levels of intelligence, trustworthiness and so on. 
Listen to the debates a while back about the radio
jock (Imis, I think his name was) getting fired for
using the word 'ho'.  Many people assumed that because
black people used it, it was okay for white people to
use it.  However, this is based on the assumption that
because it is used in rap songs or 'hip hop culture'
or whatever other media source you use, that all black
people use it.  In fact, that is far from the case. 
But there you have labels again.

The fact is that labels exist (though I'll admit that
this is also the first time I've ever heard
'polyamorist' myself).  People use them all the time. 
If you don't like a label, don't use it.  If people
use it for you, you can try to correct them to use the
right one (for instance, I'll tell people "I'm not
white, I'm Irish").

Or, you can try to change the definition of the label.
 That is what a lot of activist groups work on through
education.  They try to teach others that there is a
lot more to people then the common definitions of that
label.  It's like gays or trekkies/ trekkers trying to
convince people that they are 'just plain folks'. 
Showing that they can be no different from anyone else
is an attempt to change the common definition of the
label.

So, I'd agree if you aren't interested in trying to
educate people to change their impression of a label,
then just don't use it.

Oh, and personally I consider 'polyamory' a pretty
loose definition anyway.  It's actually such a broad
category it's hardly informative to use it.  However,
until better, more concise language is developed, I'll
work with what I have.

Pat


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

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 17:31:35 -0600
From: "Laura Stewart" <mathlaura@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Identity Polytics.
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Message-ID:

<4d8346f80706021631g7f4d9ab6uec6491bde2cd9b35@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
format=flowed

On 6/2/07, Kelly Cookson <kc62301@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thoughtful polyamorists like yourselves are careful.
But non-poly 
folks may
> not share your insights and assume whatever they
read about polyamory
> describes me. "Hey, isn't Kelly into that polyamory
stuff? Check out 
this
> article on polyamory." And polyamorists can assume I
share their 
beliefs
> because they consider me polyamorist. Here's an
example: I was 
talking with
> a self-identified polyamorist about the concept of
jealousy in the 
O'Neills'
> book, Open Marriage. I said the O'Neill's believe
jealousy reflects
> insecurity and possessiveness we acquire from
socially learned ideas 
about
> monogamy. He agreed. He was really suprised that I
didn't agree. 
Jealousy
> appears in every known culture, and jealousy appears
in infants as 
young as
> 6 months old. There's more to jealousy than social
learning about 
monogamy.
> (Another story...) The point is, because he
considered me a 
polyamorist, he
> assumed I would agree with ideas in books about
polyamory such as 
Open
> Marriage.

I've encountered similar situations to this.  I
suspect most people on
this list have as well.

I've had people assume that I have primary and
secondary relationships
and ask which of my partners is my primary and be
surprised when I say
that we are all primary to one another and that I
"don't really do
secondary relationships".  I've had people correct me
when I say I am
a polygamist wich "don't you mean polyamorist?" and be
surprised when
I say "yes, but I also believe in multiple MARRIAGE,
so I am also
polygamist".  I've had people be surprised that I'm
into the idea of
marriage at all.  But most significantly, I've had
people be surprised
that I don't do things the way they do or believe
things the way they
do with different people with contradictory beliefs. 
It's not that
there's a "standard" polyamory with variations.  It
seems to be that
people have a tendency to believe that other people
are the same as
them.  I'm sure the people who thought that I must
have one "open
relationship" and the people who thought that I must
not be into
marriage or any sort of committed quasi-ownership type
relationship
would be quite surprised at each other.

-Laura


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