gwind, you make some very good points about the integrity of selfhood and the stability we need in that space. Today’s Oracle is very interesting in terms of the difficulties experienced when we attempt it in the face of others’ stuff in our psychic field. Retaining flexibility is difficult and knowing when, or when not, to apply it.
If we do not doubt ourselves it can get us into problems and entrenched blindspots – but if we forever question ourselves then stability within self is elusive.
Your observations deserve some provisional reflection, gwind! I think we evolve into the answer; there will never be a given for all times and all places – and sometimes, I think our flexibility should be less around discourse/intercourse and more about privately made changes/actions/modifications in the light of all that we learn through our exchanges.
Perhaps we don’t back down in the debate, perhaps our assessments remain the same, but we nonetheless modify our lens slightly and our actions significantly.
It may be for others to notice those changes (the unaware probably will not – frustrating I know!) rather than change the content or tone of our differences. 🙂
Thanks Amanda and others for taking the conversation to another level. One question arises, what is freedom? I am forever amazed when a group pushes and gains their “freedom” to do or have or whatever, only to step back and watch those coming from behind them, fall into the moat without so much as a hand to say, “hey come this way.”
I applaud individuals that stand on their own, be themselves, can calmly look at the opposition in the face and remember that no matter what we think, we are one. All lack, all fear, all hatred would melt away if only for a moment. That is who I want to be. I can piss some people off or trigger their fears by being me; my job is to realize that it is not up to me to change them. My job is to be strong enough to not let their opinions adjust my behavior or cause me to feel something that is not healthy.
I say this because I think there are times when we create our own opposition. I have seen doors glide open when my focus is on what I am going to accomplish rather than focusing on asking someone else’s permission to even attempt it.
On the other hand, if I am insecure the world responds with every projection I can muster to slam me with the sense of unworthiness.
Just a thought. In any given situation, is it more helpful to stand in front of the mirror or the crowd and say what we need to say?
i think i get it amanda. i was with a guy for 13 years, and around about the latter middle his father took ill. as we both went through the process of care and his passing, when that end time came and i wanted the time off from work, the “legitimacy” of my relationship was subject. my supervisor and hers took it upon themselves to interpret university bereavement policy that would “in most supervisor’s opinion” be granted (as i was told when pursuing it up the chain of command). really, after the first few years it was only me who was continuously questioned as to when we would wed/breed – never really asking me why or what actual beliefs/feelings were, just the end assumptions. so yay! but…
half & gwind —
not even necessarily poly vs mono, but i was thinking in terms of some of the other long-unquestioned foundations of marriage itself, and our culture’s tendency to only recognize that as “the” legitimate relationship model. and the sense i have that even on a personal scale within an individual marriage, there are many assumptions about how and who we are when in one.
a good friend of mine worked briefly for Equality Maine, a local equal-rights non-profit focused on LGBTQ issues. my friend said that at that time (a few years ago), the executive director said they had no interest in pursuing legalizing gay marriage in maine — they had other fish to fry, saw other ways they were interested in working toward equality without getting caught up in the marriage battle. but when the far-right-fundamentalist-christian faction here managed to put a repeal of our new law on the ballot a couple years ago, Equality Maine really had no choice but to throw themselves into it with all they had.
so…. hopefully that makes things a little clearer. i realize that in one sense, gay marriage laws are way overdue & that this reflects shifting values, in a good way. but regardless of one’s mono or poly leanings, i think the marriage issue is in some ways a red herring. it may distract us from a deeper questioning of the marriage “institution.” but maybe i’m putting the cart before the horse? maybe this is the only way to get from point A to point B, given where we are right now.
My Half Brother
When a law like this passes, it’s usually the reflection of values in society slowly changing. This law is not leading the way in NY. It’s 30 years behind the times.
gwind, think of Salt Lake City.
There, legislative poly is what you don’t get elsewhere in the West (on religious grounds). Whereas you won’t get legislative homo in Utah (on religious grounds). Amanda seems to be suggesting that this victory is one for monogamy in different clothes and that maybe PW celebrations are contrary to the polyamorous values regularly championed in this space!
Arguably, the point is not legislating poly and/or homo and/or any other configuration – just to engage with Amanda’s pondering – you get ‘rights’ with legislation along with the ‘right’ to be taxed. The economic part of the piece will always have the power to shunt the religion.. But it will never eliminate; only displace.
Religion, morality, legislation and economics. People always dreamed of a day when legislation would ‘carry the day’ of the ethical right.
Yet, when you steamroller ignorance, it just goes underground and pops up oppressively elsewhere – with a new tyranny of normativity only a heartbeat away… not uncommonly among the recently liberated… who are suddenly insiders with interests in the status quo, rather than outsiders banging on the door.
Amanda, can you elaborate on your post?
The political approach is fairly recent; we’ve been approaching it socially for a long time. I think this will do fine in NY. To win any kind of referendum in NY you would have to win over the city, and frankly New Yorkers just don’t care who does what with whom. That is everyone else’s problem 🙂
Also note that the opposition in most states is trumped up by the likes of the Mormons. Most people really don’t care; they have to be persuaded at great expense, and driven to the polls. New York is the home to Wall Street and sure, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were born here — but we are socially liberal, in the sense of “reality having a well known liberal bias.”
new york is likely better able to make it stick than some states. maine had passed a similar measure a couple years ago, signed by the governor, then a citizens’ initiative forced it to the ballot & it lost. SO frustrating.
of course, given all the questioning of marriage and monogamy that happens on this site, sometimes i wonder if, culturally-speaking, we’re coming at this issue of equal treatment of relationships (even in terms of legal rights) from the wrong direction…. 🙂
I think this is a victory for us all, that in spite of the stalemate at the federal level, the states are still capable of doing the right thing. As long as SCOTUS stays out of any attempts to overturn the law, I think we’ll see more states follow suit.
Over on HuffPo, they show an extremely jubilant crowd outside the Stonewall: that says it all right there.
My congratulations to the state of New York for doing what is truly right, and to the people of New York for taking this all the way.
gwind, you make some very good points about the integrity of selfhood and the stability we need in that space. Today’s Oracle is very interesting in terms of the difficulties experienced when we attempt it in the face of others’ stuff in our psychic field. Retaining flexibility is difficult and knowing when, or when not, to apply it.
If we do not doubt ourselves it can get us into problems and entrenched blindspots – but if we forever question ourselves then stability within self is elusive.
Your observations deserve some provisional reflection, gwind! I think we evolve into the answer; there will never be a given for all times and all places – and sometimes, I think our flexibility should be less around discourse/intercourse and more about privately made changes/actions/modifications in the light of all that we learn through our exchanges.
Perhaps we don’t back down in the debate, perhaps our assessments remain the same, but we nonetheless modify our lens slightly and our actions significantly.
It may be for others to notice those changes (the unaware probably will not – frustrating I know!) rather than change the content or tone of our differences. 🙂
Thanks Amanda and others for taking the conversation to another level. One question arises, what is freedom? I am forever amazed when a group pushes and gains their “freedom” to do or have or whatever, only to step back and watch those coming from behind them, fall into the moat without so much as a hand to say, “hey come this way.”
I applaud individuals that stand on their own, be themselves, can calmly look at the opposition in the face and remember that no matter what we think, we are one. All lack, all fear, all hatred would melt away if only for a moment. That is who I want to be. I can piss some people off or trigger their fears by being me; my job is to realize that it is not up to me to change them. My job is to be strong enough to not let their opinions adjust my behavior or cause me to feel something that is not healthy.
I say this because I think there are times when we create our own opposition. I have seen doors glide open when my focus is on what I am going to accomplish rather than focusing on asking someone else’s permission to even attempt it.
On the other hand, if I am insecure the world responds with every projection I can muster to slam me with the sense of unworthiness.
Just a thought. In any given situation, is it more helpful to stand in front of the mirror or the crowd and say what we need to say?
i think i get it amanda. i was with a guy for 13 years, and around about the latter middle his father took ill. as we both went through the process of care and his passing, when that end time came and i wanted the time off from work, the “legitimacy” of my relationship was subject. my supervisor and hers took it upon themselves to interpret university bereavement policy that would “in most supervisor’s opinion” be granted (as i was told when pursuing it up the chain of command). really, after the first few years it was only me who was continuously questioned as to when we would wed/breed – never really asking me why or what actual beliefs/feelings were, just the end assumptions. so yay! but…
half & gwind —
not even necessarily poly vs mono, but i was thinking in terms of some of the other long-unquestioned foundations of marriage itself, and our culture’s tendency to only recognize that as “the” legitimate relationship model. and the sense i have that even on a personal scale within an individual marriage, there are many assumptions about how and who we are when in one.
a good friend of mine worked briefly for Equality Maine, a local equal-rights non-profit focused on LGBTQ issues. my friend said that at that time (a few years ago), the executive director said they had no interest in pursuing legalizing gay marriage in maine — they had other fish to fry, saw other ways they were interested in working toward equality without getting caught up in the marriage battle. but when the far-right-fundamentalist-christian faction here managed to put a repeal of our new law on the ballot a couple years ago, Equality Maine really had no choice but to throw themselves into it with all they had.
so…. hopefully that makes things a little clearer. i realize that in one sense, gay marriage laws are way overdue & that this reflects shifting values, in a good way. but regardless of one’s mono or poly leanings, i think the marriage issue is in some ways a red herring. it may distract us from a deeper questioning of the marriage “institution.” but maybe i’m putting the cart before the horse? maybe this is the only way to get from point A to point B, given where we are right now.
My Half Brother
When a law like this passes, it’s usually the reflection of values in society slowly changing. This law is not leading the way in NY. It’s 30 years behind the times.
gwind, think of Salt Lake City.
There, legislative poly is what you don’t get elsewhere in the West (on religious grounds). Whereas you won’t get legislative homo in Utah (on religious grounds). Amanda seems to be suggesting that this victory is one for monogamy in different clothes and that maybe PW celebrations are contrary to the polyamorous values regularly championed in this space!
Arguably, the point is not legislating poly and/or homo and/or any other configuration – just to engage with Amanda’s pondering – you get ‘rights’ with legislation along with the ‘right’ to be taxed. The economic part of the piece will always have the power to shunt the religion.. But it will never eliminate; only displace.
Religion, morality, legislation and economics. People always dreamed of a day when legislation would ‘carry the day’ of the ethical right.
Yet, when you steamroller ignorance, it just goes underground and pops up oppressively elsewhere – with a new tyranny of normativity only a heartbeat away… not uncommonly among the recently liberated… who are suddenly insiders with interests in the status quo, rather than outsiders banging on the door.
Amanda, can you elaborate on your post?
The political approach is fairly recent; we’ve been approaching it socially for a long time. I think this will do fine in NY. To win any kind of referendum in NY you would have to win over the city, and frankly New Yorkers just don’t care who does what with whom. That is everyone else’s problem 🙂
Also note that the opposition in most states is trumped up by the likes of the Mormons. Most people really don’t care; they have to be persuaded at great expense, and driven to the polls. New York is the home to Wall Street and sure, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were born here — but we are socially liberal, in the sense of “reality having a well known liberal bias.”
new york is likely better able to make it stick than some states. maine had passed a similar measure a couple years ago, signed by the governor, then a citizens’ initiative forced it to the ballot & it lost. SO frustrating.
of course, given all the questioning of marriage and monogamy that happens on this site, sometimes i wonder if, culturally-speaking, we’re coming at this issue of equal treatment of relationships (even in terms of legal rights) from the wrong direction…. 🙂
I think this is a victory for us all, that in spite of the stalemate at the federal level, the states are still capable of doing the right thing. As long as SCOTUS stays out of any attempts to overturn the law, I think we’ll see more states follow suit.
Over on HuffPo, they show an extremely jubilant crowd outside the Stonewall: that says it all right there.
My congratulations to the state of New York for doing what is truly right, and to the people of New York for taking this all the way.