Dillycious

Gay marriage / Civil unions

September 22, 2006 at 5:38 pm (homosexuality, letters, South Africa)

Opaqueherm

Very valuable questions, that you ask and that we all struggle with, whether or not we belong to a long-established hegemony or a newly-forming one.

It does seem odd to seek marriage that has come up through the ranks of ages as a method of legitimising certain people over others – the progeny of this sort of union are better than the progeny of that sort of union. “This woman is my property, as are her children and my other property will go to them if I so decide.” Suzanne du Toit and Annemarie de Vos, who tested the adoption laws – that only one woman could adopt a child, not a pair of women. Annemarie adopted two children, and found that were she to die, that Suzanne would not legally be able to continue to live with and mother the children. They would have to go back into the foster care system and Suzanne would be offered no recognition of time served. They won. The courts now recognise, thanks to them, that those children belong to both women and no one can take them away. They are a whisker’s breadth away from legal marriage. What makes them not married? Certainly not anything in their lives. Only the law and/or a choice on their part.

Firstly, I think that the bottom line to the answer is that SOME gays and lesbians feel that nobody should be standing around saying “No, you can’t get married, that is reserved for heterosexuals only”, and similarly “No, you can’t sit on that bench, it is reserved for whites only”. If you compare any standard of legitimacy regarding civil rights to another issue, the inequalities surface. Just like feminism rode the black consciousness wave in the 60s, so we all ride each other’s waves in every decade since then.

Each standard of legitimacy should be endorsed by government and other legitimising entities because those entities represent our goals and ideals and morals and values, reflected back at us. We elect a government of the people and that government should reflect the values of the people, not the loudest minority. Every society needs a forum to thrash out their beliefs in the process of turning the beliefs into concrete reflections and those reflections are law. Once a law is established it is tested on the streets. No system of government lands fully-formed, well-working, standard-endorsing, in our laps. It has to be questioned on a global scale and that is done through constitutions and courts. A constitution is, and should be, reflective of our desire to be the best humans we can be.

Once we have set the standards we want to live by, in law, then those that dissent will have a chance to see how it works in the real world. Only when dissenters are exposed to something do they think and get a chance to see that (in this case) the:

12 reasons same-sex marriages will ruin society 1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control. 2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children. 3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour, just-for-fun marriage was meaningful. 5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal. 6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities. 7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America. 8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children. 11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans. 12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

And if they (gay, straight, whatever) still don’t agree – THEY DON’T HAVE TO ‘TURN GAY’ AND MARRY. What a bonus.

Secondly, “marriage” is changing. But I do believe that even if I don’t believe in marriage anymore, that I should, as fellow human, fight for their right to do as they believe. I would love to be supported in what I believe, so, if I can, I support those that believe. I wouldn’t support a paedophile, a rapist, a murderer – no matter what they advocated. But I would support those that believe in a positive ideal, of love, of long-term togetherness. There are so many cynics out there that this cause is a pleasure to walk behind.

Thirdly, I agree, let’s not throw civil union out with the bathwater – let’s ADD it to the mix. Once gays and lesbians have the right to marry, let’s add civil union. Then heterosexuals and gays and lesbians and whomever wants whatever they want between consenting adults can get what ever they want, whichever kind of union suits their particular relationship and circumstances – only we know (the relationshipees) what would suit us the best, and no government should big brother me out of anything that I want in my personal capacity – especially if it hurts no one.

Fourth, yes let’s – embark on something new too. Let’s explore alternatives to hegemonic standards and norms. It is hard to think outside the box, but I want to. Hmm, already I am stuck – if you have someone, you can have them with or without contract, with or without religious ceremony, with or without symbolic ceremony, with or without marriage – we have all of those things but one right now. What thoughts do you have, Opaqueherm? I would love to debate it but I am mindbound to the hegemony.

I think the whole fear of letting gays marry is about whether or not it will undermine marriage as it stands now. I think – too late, marriage is way undermined already – so much divorce, so much staying married for the children, so much adultery, so much violence – and this is what heterosexuals have done to marriage. Not that the same thing won’t happen under gay marriage. But that’s the thing – nothing will change, except that SOME gays MIGHT show a new way, a better way – marriages built on equality and not diversity, same and not different.

What do you think?

Fetsiboomsticks

….

Fetsiboomsticks

Since I have some time between conference sessions, let me try to respond more to a few things in your e-mail. If I was til after the long weekend, I might not respond. Please be aware that I’m a person with few words, so I apologize for the brevity of my reponse in comparison with yours:

From reading your e-mail it seems that you have too much faith in the state or government structures and rule of law. There are other forces that are dictating our actions and reactions. In the case of homosexuality, there is more than the law that conceives it as “unnatural”. There’s also “the Church” or religion (Christianity in particular), which historically has played a key role in defining who’s human or un-human, who’s natural or unnatural, who’s superior or inferior, etc. When state and religion cannot be severed from one another, it’s difficult to expect equality for all, even when there seemingly is a “democracy” or a “constitution”. As certain religion uses the state to prolong its power and legitimacy, people in positions of power also resort to religion to justify their ends (e.g., George Bush and, ironically, the U.S. is one of the few places that has declared a separation of church and state).

I state the above, but, yet, I’m also shaped by a religion and bounded by laws because such is my/our existence in this present state. So, to ask myself to think “outside of the box” and look for alternatives to marriage would be difficult (but not insurmountable I’m sure). From my generational point of view, it’s difficult for gays or straights to hold onto or have meaningful relationships, but when they are there, trust and faith should (ideally) be sufficient to hold them together. However, I must confess that the right to marriage doesn’t occupy my mind as well as political agenda at all. Since I’m a person/woman of color (except perhaps in South Africa, I’m regarded differently), issues of racial and gender and class equality are more urgent. I do believe that social relations could be re-defined and wealth could be distributed more equally, but these must begin and be achieved at a very local level by and through people – communities of people who share the view that a different world is possible need to be formed and nurtured wherever and whenever possible; and this is easier said than done.

In short, I don’t have much (or anything) to contribute towards advocating for gay marriage. Honestly, I’ve been hesitant to say this outside of my circle of friends, but I’ll state it here: I think this is a white middle class agenda and a conservative agenda that seeks to advance the economic position/possession of a small group of people. Working class gays (mainly women) are concerned about surviving on an everyday basis; and if it’s with a loving supportive partner, that’s a sugar coating on top of all the hardship. I believe this, but I wouldn’t go as far as to claim to be speaking on their behalf. Their (non)participation in the gay marriage “movement” speaks for themselves.

Opaqueherm

…

Opaqueherm

The length of your letters doesn’t bother me, I think you get to the point quicker, perhaps I am more careful because I don’t want to offend, or because I have been in silence for so long. Such a pleasure to talk to someone about these things.

Of course I cannot empathise legitimately because I am not a suffering woman of color but one of those pariahs – the white middle-class woman. Here racism abounds, there is no escaping it, hatred of all kinds, violence of all kinds. And yet I choose to stay. I have chosen this because I believe I can make a difference. And, yes, I do find your criticism valid. However, I am in that awkward position of someone who surfs the knife edge, if I lean this way – the left complains, if I lean that way – the right complains, history complains, and the future beckons. I have little hope, and am desperately holding onto what little I have, trying naively to not be cynical.

And I have NOT just taken up the cause of same-sex marriage, there are many that I have taken up. Those that fight just one fight are rare.

I think both you and I do fall into one similar group, the educated. And we see the world through different eyes. Instead of learning the hard way, we have the benefit of other’s experience through our education. But again the sword – our education distances us from the very people we want to fight for. But does that mean that I am not welcome in the fight. Just this week a black minister accused whites of being too passive, of not picking a side and fighting.

My issues are less with individuals and their choices. I am more focused on the breadth of society and its machinations. Whether one is Christian or Muslim or whatever, is irrelevant to me. Not that I don’t care, but that I recognise that each individual has to sort out these questions for themselves, whether they will support or not, or be or not be, or act or not act. Each must decide. You were presented with a list of email addresses and your choice is not to write and take up arms with the broader community, but to speak to one. There is nothing wrong with that. In my mind, your act is just as important as an act of many that reaches many.

I just think that it is strange (and I am not suggesting that you fall in this category) to say as a heterosexual that homosexuality is unnatural, and then to want to go into the house next door and enforce your opinion through a policeman. What does it matter what the people are doing next door? How strange is it to use a proxy sword to hurt – would the parent want the child to see violence rather than same-sex love? How odd. And that is the result of suggesting that some are less human than others. If the government, and other official institutions, do not legitimise, then each faction of society starts to push and pull until their is huge division. Entropy happens even in societies that have clear boundaries, clear laws, traditional values. What prevents entropy is making sure that we the people have a stake, that we care and are involved actively in creating our cultures.

What is always cited is, “the children, oh the poor children, they will be corrupted.” Bull. There has been an escalating abdication of responsibility by parents. Each day children are exposed to many things (not that I am equating porn, et al, with gay, but that in heterosexual minds the equation is made) porn, violence, guns, drugs, bullying – the list is endless – and I believe parents must involve themselves in contextualising these things for their children. Explain, perhaps, that their Faith does not condone homosexuality but that it exists in the world and that they have to deal with it, like anything else.

But you are right I do believe in a separation of Church and State, not because I have no Faith, but because I believe in the right of all the Faiths to exist. Religious governments tend to be monotheistic. What I don’t believe in is violence and aggression and murder and hurting. And I abhor it done in the name of Faiths of any kind. Everything else goes.

I guess the reason why I have such faith in government is because I am here and we have done amazing things. I know, other governments are not like ours, and I know, ours is not perfect. But I am here, and this is what I have to work with. My upbringing tells me that to not vote, to not speak, to not write, to not act is TO CONDONE. I was part of a group within a generation here that stood up and said apartheid had to go. And it worked, apartheid went. It gave me faith. My eternal optimism leads me to believe that if I fight this good fight and win, it makes me stronger for the next battle. It gives me strength, wit and confidence. And the many battles I have fought and won have certainly done this for me. I see it now. At the time, they were hard. But we all chose what we can fight, what we want to fight. I fight discrimination against women and gays and racism, because I live that world. And those are just the big battles, there are, of course, the daily smaller ones. But yes, both blacks and whites assume that I support their racist ideas, the whites against blacks and the blacks against whites. We have other issues here, so many. And there are gays here that don’t like marriage too, and there are those that want it. Which side is ever ‘right’?

I see what bothers you now, that marriage itself is part of the conservative agenda – but I disagree on one level (note not all levels). I disagree on the level that it is a liberal agenda that is inclusive – give me marriage, cohabitation, polyandry, monogamy, civil unions, whatever. To me the conservative agenda seeks to homogenise, to exclude those that would not homogenise – everyone must be white, Christian, heterosexual and married – or you don’t exist. So I believe that by giving gays the right to marry, you will see, few will. It is a stand against the unjustness of saying, “you MAY not marry, you are less human than heterosexuals.” Yes, marriage is about trust, and children. What of Suzanne’s plight with her children? Would you just write the children off as possessions within a small group, an advancement of possessions. If we are careless with one life, does it not make us more careless of many other nameless faceless children. And why dictate a trustful cohabitation – if that suits you, great – it might not suit another. It doesn’t make you less right because you do, it just means you are ready to pick up your sword to defend your religion, your trustful cohabitation, your way of thinking. Laudable, because so few bother to take up the defence nor the war. Remember, I have been speaking into a Void for a long time. You are the first to respond. I respect that. Only dialogues makes each aware of what they would fight for and that realisation has value.

Fetsiboomsticks

….

Hi Fetsiboomsticks,

Hope you had an enjoyable long weekend. You speak/write with much passion and such feelings, I presume, are connected with your life experiences. Please do not take my points personally for they were merely generalizations. Nonetheless, I appreciate the fact that you do recognize your social position, which most, especially self-proclaimed liberals, have difficulty owning up to. Yes, I do believe that people in priviledged positions should just be honest with themselves and everyone else that they do reap certain benefits from being who they are (this includes myself, who, as you pointed out, has the benefit of being able to be educated — with much sacrifice by people who were part of changing the U.S. in the 60s).

Anyhow, I think you come down too hard on parents. I’m not a parent myself, but I do have friends who have children and what I’ve learned through them is that it’s unfortunate that a baby’s not born with a manual or instructions on how to nurture him/her. Some parents are fortunate enough to have elders in their families who help out or have enough monetary resources to have one parent stay at home or hire babysitters while many others are not as fortunate. The demand of this capitalist world in which we exist really forces people, especially low income/poor people, to work long and longer hours. Children are left at home or at afterschool centers (if they are fortunate to live in a neighborhood that has such resource) or one the streets. Parents feeling guilty and compensating their lack of time for their children by giving them whatever they want. On the other hand, there’s the law that makes it difficult for parents to discipline their children (I’m not suggesting that their shouldn’t be laws to protect children, but where’s the boundary?) and emphasis on being friends with their children; hence, we have a situation whereby parents are forced to abdicate their role as parents. In any event, to connect this dynamic to our discussion, do you know of any gay couple who are poor and have adopted children? I personally don’t. So, we can assume that gay couples who have adopted children are from a certain middle class standing. We can then assume that they have resources (time and money) to raise the children they adopt. As such, for gays (by gay, I mean both men and women because I want that option for myself to be able to identify as gay rather than being limited to a pregiven social category) to (loudly) suggest that they are better parents, which implies that (certain) straight/heterosexual parents are unfit for such role, is disingenuous. I think there are lots of pressure on parents, be they gay or straight, so we must be fair even though children’s perception of society does initially come from their “families” (whether it be with extended relatives, biological parents, foster homes, etc.).

Well, I have to stop here and tend to other matters. Just note that I do speak from a point of view of someone who grew up in America, so evidently, my experiences in the U.S. inform what I’ve written above.

Opaqueherm

….

Opaqueherm

No fear, I am not taking it personally, but you are very intuitive, I am passionate. And I love debate. I rarely have the opportunity to do what we are doing. Live debate is so much more difficult because you/one doesn’t choose your/one’s words as carefully as one does when typing, and too often the debate becomes too heated. No, I am loving this.

In terms of those who should own up to reaping benefits, one of the things that really gets my goat is people who abuse those they are taking from and then, would you believe, try to justify why they are right in doing so. I am the first to say that I would not be where I am today (which is nowhere fancy) without the unfortunate unwitting abuse of others. But I do try to give back, now that I am aware. And if you ask the universe for ways that you can give back, it piles them on you, and just the right kind. Thanks universe.

Of course I wouldn’t know any non-middle class gay adoptive parents, They wouldn’t give children to people who didn’t have the means. I take your point about poor people who see little of their children because they are working so hard, and rich people whose children are pacified with money, but I get so tired of hearing that everyone but the parents must parent the kids. Why have children if you aren’t even prepared to have a 10 minute conversation with them about same-sex marriage – not even tag it on the back of a hetero marriage conversation. The fact that we treat children, not like people, but as commodities that will mature when we hit retirement age – the kids will look after me. We are slowly losing our relationship with each other as people.

Why don’t we just set up kibbutzim and cut to the chase, do the socialism thing times 25? I think it’s a real big-chief mentality. I myself want my full autonomy guaranteed by the state. I want to live or die by what I believe and not have to fit in with a democracy who wants to legislate my eating, drinking and smoking off the menu. I object to the state coming into my home and teling me how to bring up my children, who to marry, and what to eat – you have heard of this excess tax – that the more empty the kilojoules in a food the more tax there will be on it. I know the arguments, but just like my coughing up for the people who drive drunk, who marry stupidly, who have babies for the government grant, who ‘don’t feel like’ completing their education or degrees, and give R1.7 m parties to schmooze for funding – I eat. How come they don’t have to cough up for my appetite? We all do our ‘fair’ share of stupid things.

And I don’t think money has anything to do with good values (or bad). It is the quality of parenting that matters. During the Depression in the US the future Gloria Steinems, Rosalind Mileses and Alice Walkers were bred. Their parents were probably poor and uneducated. One day, no matter what our upbringing, we have to stand up and say, “I make my own choices, I decide for myself.” What can I learn to make my life better and easier? And it is upbringing that gives you that, your parents – not some nebulous government organisation, not some legislation. I myself decide enough with apartheid, enough with violence, enough with domestic violence, enough with so, so many things. And I can tell you my parents do not represent my values entirely. Many of them I thought out for myself. Mainly through education. And I believe that if I do my bit, help to open the eyes of anyone, teach someone something anything, at any opportunity, no matter how small, then I have contributed. And the Universe provides those opportunities – it’s amazing. And I love it, I have a ball.

Och, I have had a trying afternoon. Will you forgive me if I cut this one short?

Fetsiboomsticks

….

Hi Fetsiboomsticks,

Hope you had some time to enjoy the sun over the weekend. I very seldom check email over the weekend because I don’t have internet installed at where I live. Anyhow, Am glad to know that you’re not taking my comments personally. I actually don’t really care for debate because I accept the fact that people have different views and I don’t have a big enough ego to think that my views are more accurate or better than others. On the other hand, I don’t mind exchanging and listening to different view points.

I see your point about getting “so tired of hearing that everyone but the parents must parent the kids”. However, as I previously wrote, parenting, to a certain extent, has been in the hands of the state — and perhaps moreso these days? For instance, the state (at least in the U.S.) has decided in many instances when a child should be taken from his/her home only to be put in foster care (the reason could be that the parent/s couldn’t pay rent for a month). Presently, if a parent slaps a child in public for misbehaving, the parent could be reported to the authorities for being abusive. I don’t support child abuse, but I do believe that kids do need some form of disciplining from time to time. However, this is only on the physical level.

You also brought up the issue of values and suggested the “proper” parenting means teaching children values. First, I find it rather interesting that we should speak of value at all here because it (being “value”) is the very thing that heterosexual society claim that gays do not have (i.e., gay people have no values). I’m sure you’re familiar with this accusation. Second, I personally wouldn’t link parenting and teaching children values together or treat the latter as an inherent quality that a parent should have because I think a parent’s responsibility to a child is to make sure that the child’s fed and clothed and has a roof over his/her head — these things are of course hard to provide when one doesn’t have the economic means. While some might be fortunate to have relatives whom they could leave their children with, value is something that is socially constructed; but, nonetheless, it is a social thing and involves a whole network of people. This means that parents cannot alone be responsible for teaching their child/children good or bad values.

Anyhow, let me stop here. My partner’s family is in a crisis mode right presently and the negative energy emanating from everyone is affecting me too, so my mind is preoccupied.

Opaqueherm

….

Opaqueherm

Of course I am not saying close Social Welfare, send the lawyers home and burn the shelters. I am not mad. But what I am saying is – just because you are poor (or rich, because I think the rich neglect their children just as much as the poor [and let’s not even talk about the middle-class] OK, it’s true, I think ALL kids are neglected and I don’t think it’s a social class issue), parents must take more responsibility to inculcate values with their children. And extended families helping them would be great – the more family the better – the less state involvement the better. But that doesn’t mean the state must close their eyes. There are bad people out there and I do believe it is the state’s responsibility to protect THE GOOD PEOPLES’ way of life. So, children are good, and if parents are bad, children should be moved to other good people. And the parents should be locked away forever and tortured daily. Oops, that just fell out. I am debating the rehabilitation vs elimination issue with myself and have decided that today is the day that I am going to start researching it. A wonderful documentary I saw a trillion years ago called Titticut Follies really influenced my ideas about prison and the death penalty (made me anti) but I live in a violent, violent, violent (55 000 women were officially raped last year, depending on who you listen to, this is the police’s version and 20 000 were murdered [population 50 million or so]) and I certainly am afraid to say let the rapists out of prison – (especially if they plan on having children and inculcating them with their values). You see, this is a quagmire.

But I know I have a very idealised view of family – my parents were totally happily married (mommy died years ago) and I had an extraordinary relationship with my sister (she’s moved across country). I wasn’t wild about my extended family, but they were coincidentally awful. Many people I know have wonderful, huge extended families, with massive family gatherings of warm, emotional people. I am certainly not representative with my awful extended family. Not to mention the movies that have affected my rosy expectations – The Family Stone, The Cider House Rules, Home for the Holidays, Friends – and too many more.

What have you heard about kibbutzem? Is that a solution?

Fetsiboomsticks

….

Fetsiboomsticks,

Remembering one of the few lessons I learned from Chinese school while I was growing up, I recall that there are two schools of thought about the character of humans. One school believes that people are born good while the other assert that people are born evil/bad. So, to say that a chilid is good, you are taking a position or making a judgement. I have a friend who would disagree with you and insist that there are people who are just born bad/evil. Anyhow, this is all but philosophical. In real life, as you say, the number of rapes and murders have yet to decline. I’ve heard the debates in South Africa on the radio. Numerous people have argued that tougher penalties are necessary while others believe that the police needs to be drastically reformed. From conversations I’ve heard others say that as women, especially black women, move up the economic ladder, they tend to encounter more violence from men who are mostly unemployed and angry. Of course, the emphasis is always on violence amongst as well as committed by blacks, but little is said about violence amongst whites, which I heard on an occassion, can be alot worse. Perhaps the truth and reconcilation process missed the point that some sort of peace needed/needs to be restored within rather than across racial groups?

This issue of violence is linked to your interest in “kibbutzim” as a solution. Although I don’t know much about it, I don’t think it’s a solution because it assumes that people haven’t been living in and forming their own communities. Also, kibbutzim seems very structured (which sounds to me like an element of community policing would be required to sustain it). If kibbutzim goes hand in glove with the state, it’s even worse. People lived in communal settings during the Mao era, but the people suffered (both who were once rich and the poor). People were disciplined into being submissive to the state all in the name of achieving a common good (people were expected to be submissive to the emperors under the various empires, so where’s the difference that Mao was trying to introduce?); and this common good was decided by the state, rather than the people.

Anyhow, the broader question is what constitutes a utopia/utopian society? There’s no easy answer although some scholars have attempted to construct their visions of it. I’ll just say that it must begin small and, whatever it is, disperse through people’s sincere interaction with one another (e.g., the movie “Pay it Forward” offers one example of making small change that has a ripple effect).

Well, have to get to my work. You have a good one.

Opaqueherm

….

Opaqueherm

Isn’t it amazing that our discussion has been interjected with this story about the Amish children who were executed. Goosebumps. I forgot about them, and they are far more germane to our discussion.

A community of people brought up with warm and living values. That care for each other. That would step in front of a bullet for another.

Of course, it’s a bummer that they don’t allow homosexuality, and satellite TV, oh and cuppacinos, yes, that could be a problem – but still I admire them, I really do.

I would choose to live like that.

When I first became a feminist I dreamed of those communal farms they set up in the 70s. Periodically, my group of friends talks about it here. It would make sense – bunches of women living on a farm working and living together. All the coming and going would put criminals off and we would live safer, our social and family group with us, communally looking after the kids. I am way too idealistic. Damn.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT I FOUND! Ooh you are going to love this (I hope) – speaking of pay-it-forward and sincere interactions with each other (such a good point – pay-it-forward gave me goosies too – you are right – a bit of sincerity goes a long, long way) – MEETUP.COM

The more I look at it the more I see how cleverly it is set up for safety – go have a look – I am going to be making a list today of all the brilliant points about this site that matches interests to interests and creates groups – I love the programming synchronising seamlessly with the intent, it’s poetry.

Basically,

You can look for groups to meetup with by topic (3000 topics) or towns (uncountable). So you wander around looking at the existent groups in your town, and you find that there are a couple that you are interested in, but not say, scifi. So off you go and you find that, naturally, in New York, there are trillions of divine and wonderful scifi groups. There you can say that you want to join a scifi group and automatically they assume that you want to join one in Pretoria and tell you that they will alert you if there are more people that want that. So I did. And you can personalise a short message to the potential scifiees. For free. And you can have a teeny bit of a profile and a picture. In the free department your picture and message is then sent automatically to people that then sign up for the Pretoria Scifi Meetup – so that is an Alert. Then, if someone sees that the Scifi Meetup Alert gang is getting bigger and bigger and it looks like a buncha people that seem interesting – one of the people, even me, can cough up 70 dollars for a six month membership – (which I recoup from the members of the group – if I have 10 members of a 70 member group pitch for an event I make a cover charge of 7 dollars – or if 20 pitch 4 dollars, or whatever) then if I belong to 60 Meetups I am now a live member and people have access to my profiles with pictures and testimonials and friends cross-referenced (thereby endorsing my niceness and safeness) and the profiles of people in my group, and my group name now becomes Scifi Meetup Group as does any other group I decide to organise. As organiser of my group I can send 12 web-based emails to my members per day, start discussion groups, set up polls, generate calendar events with automatic reply systems. Already I have received three emails to tell me who else is interested in some of the interest alerts that I sent out. Automatic emails that say Mario is interested in the scifi group – I can’t see more that what he looks like and the three lines that he wrote about why he is interested. One day when there are enough people we setup a meetup and depending on the size of the group, say 20 people – although there are groups with thousands of members – with the ratio of girls to boys reasonable, then we meet in a public place and see what the people are like.

I have been up and down this website, and it all seems very well worked out and organised. I am impressed. Of course I would much prefer to not live in a town that has one person other than myself interested in scifi, but I should give it a couple of days, maybe there are more.

Ok I know, a scifi group, ptuie – but there are more socially conscious groups – many in fact – with bunches of members – go have a look – New York is saturated with them. Why do I think you live in New York? I can’t remember. Do you?

Fetsiboomsticks

….

Fetsiboomsticks

I was reading the Sunday Times this past weekend. The New York Times (Magazine?) is especially interesting because it reports the trend of high school violence across the U.S. in the past few months and recent years. What I find interesting is how these cases are receiving exposure and, coincidentally they’re predominantly white. Even Bush feels the need to address the issue at a conference. On the one hand, it, for the most part, reveals how sick white society is. On the other hand, it made me upset to think about how little is known or how much is forgotten about violence committed against black kids, which reflects the structural inequality in the U.S. Have you come across this book, These Bones are not my Children?, by Toni Cade Bambara? Though fictional, she gives an account of the Atlanta child murders that occurred in the 1970s up til the 1980s whereby the authorities were slow in responding to outcries from the black community.

Anyhow, I’m working on a few deadline this month, so I haven’t have a chance to look at the link you sent. If it’s a link to a virtual community, I have very little interest in it — prefer real (tangible) social relations over cyberspace ones. I also don’t idealize “community”. At best, every community has a set of expectations (explicit or implicit) and, at worse, certain communities end up nothing more than police agents, restricting what one can or cannot do/say. Also, I’ve never been attracted to the idea of bunches of women living on a farm working and living together although I’ve heard about it. I guess I prefer a culturally diverse urban space over a homogenous, rural one.

Anyhow, I do live in New York (upstate), but have been away from their for more than two years. I was in Chicago for almost half a year, then came to South Africa, returned to the U.S. (California to be exact) for almost half a year, and now back in South Africa for another year. Family’s in Cali, so pretty much still identify myself as a Californian.

Had an exhausting weekend, so feeling extremely tired right now. I’m also trying to meet a few deadlines this month, so my replies might be shorter or fewer.

Have a good one.

Opaqueherm

…

Opaqueherm

I am very disappointed to see this racism from you. The fact that you hide it under a veil of intellectualism, of course, doesn’t impress me. I have seen it in many shapes and forms living down here.

And for your information, Meetup is not a virtual community, just another example of your wet-blanketing everything – go ahead – look back at all our communications and see if you can find one that you didn’t respond to negatively.

That, coupled with your extreme racism, results in me cutting these communications off.

Fetsiboomsticks …

Fetsiboomsticks

No need for alarm or to be upset, Fetsiboomsticks. I’m a product of the world in which we live and the generation in which I was born, which includes the pessimism and racism. My replies and questions were most to ascertain a different view point; they were not meant to antagonize you.

I’m by far an intellectual and would not claim to be one; there’s just too much to know and learn. Am just a simple, everyday somebody who might appear as an intellectual only because of the training I’ve been through.

I bid you farewell, too. Only ask that you don’t hold onto negative feelings of this exchange.

Opaqueherm

Permalink Leave a Comment