[UUPoly-L] Communication (was RE: Whoops, Overreaching)

["Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net>]

I'm reading for comprehension... but communication is a two way street (and
it's multi-way when it's group communication), and for me to comprehend
clearly, the author must communicate clearly as well.   The way that the
punctuation below reads, it sounds like she's saying "Polygamy means
multiple spouses... for one man, never multiple partners for women..." (the
other remarks, inside angle brackets (< >) appear to be intended as
parenthetical remarks), so I'm asking for clarification since she made a
misstatement initially and seems to be repeating it here.  

The reason I jumped in to correct her, jenny, is because she said
(paraphrasing) "polygamy is defined as one man & many wives".  This is
incorrect, and such incorrect usage is not only sexist, it's potentially
damaging to those of us who are polygamists who are *not* religious
polygynists.  So for those of us who have been relegated to the corner
having been consistently denied our right to marry who we will it's not just
nit-picking, it's a distinction which is personally, politically and
socially relevant. 

Nit picking is a matter of focusing on "a difference which makes no
difference".  This difference not only makes a difference, it has the
potential to impact my life on a personal level.  

Language frames how we think, and informs how our societal paradigms are
constructed. 

NT,
Cat

-----Original Message-----
From: uupoly-l-bounces+catdeville=cox.net@uupa.org
[mailto:uupoly-l-bounces+catdeville=cox.net@uupa.org] On Behalf Of licorice
gumdrop
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:44 PM
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Whoops, Overreaching

good grief.  i don't think her punctuation is misleading at all.   
read for comprehension, not nitpicking.

      - jenny

On May 18, 2007, at 5:56 PM, <catdeville@cox.net> wrote:

>
> ---- Darlene Pagano <dpagano@igc.org> wrote:
>> Thanks Cat, for reminding me of what I already know but *somehow*  
>> slid right over.
>> Let me re-write my sentence, making it yet more didactic. ;)
>>
>>> Polygamy means multiple spouses <which in the case of LDS  
>>> polygamy always means multiple WIVES,  who is always defined as a  
>>> women> for one man, never multiple partners for women <nor male  
>>> partners for men>)>>
>
> You still seem to be saying that polygamy never means multiple  
> partners for women, which is not the case (in general, no society  
> has predefined words for same sex marriage at this point, they  
> either accept same gender marriage as marriage, or they don't.)  In  
> my case I am female.  I was a polygamist.  (to clarify, I was not  
> legally a bigamist, as I did not attempt to legally marry both of  
> my husbands.  We had a declared marriage until my 2nd husband was  
> hand fasted to us, then we had a religious marriage - but that  
> equates with what the LDS folks do.) I had multiple partners.  I  
> may be the exception (although not necessarily within the poly  
> community - I know more group marriages than polygynists within the  
> poly community), but even so I prove that what you say is not  
> true.  Unless what you meant to say is that *within LDS* polygamy  
> never means multiple partners for women (in which case it's  
> primarily your punctuation which is misleading.)
> _______________________________________________
> The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
> Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about  
> yourself.
> UUPoly-L mailing list
> UUPoly-L@uupa.org
> http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l

_______________________________________________
The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself.
UUPoly-L mailing list
UUPoly-L@uupa.org
http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l