longer thought about this later

[rm]

I think I get the most emotionally caught up in my status BS in a bad way when my "very fictional life," as I call it isn't taken seriously.

More specifically, how many of us pay lip service to the idea of "chosen family" or "created family" but still don't really treat such connections as seriously as biological or legal connections? One could argue there are logistically valid reasons for that, but is life really lived on logistics? I suppose this is iterations #904539054 of my complaint about the phrase of "just friends." I realize, of course, what it's supposed to mean, but it always sounds like an oxymoron to me, how can you be calling someone a friend and neglible at the same time?

I go do stuff now before I get cranky.

Oh, speaking of cranky -- if you're following the Gather dramarama -- apparently homosexual marriage will make your health insurance rates go up.

Tomorrow's SFF column that I won't even work on until tomorrow night is going to be "Does Cyberpunk Still Matter?"

Comments

[saltbox.livejournal.com]

Here is where I try to take a more nuanced approach. Which may not mesh with the Gather controversy, because I haven't been following it closely. I agree with you wholeheartedly that chosen circles may matter more than other connections, emotionally. But what I worry about (and I'm *NOT* saying that you're doing this, but I worry that there may be people who do) who opt out of formal political participation in favor of their chosen circles. And by this I mean not just voting, but writing formal legal representatives, engaging in political dialogue that takes us outside of our more comfortable chosen spheres, etc. Again, I am not saying that you're doing that (I add these caveats because people often see this as a personal attack). I try to encourage my students to all participate politically--from writing and speaking with their representatives, to commenting on proposed regulations, to acting as legal representatives in support of their political views. It often fails, and it saddens me. Because while social spheres do matter, the legal spheres matter as well. And despite what some might hope, they aren't going away anytime soon.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I think you linked two unrelated things in my post. One was about social status (not legal or political) conveyed to "family" and lip service we pay to "chosen family" but then the lack of respect we actually accord it emotionally.

The other, was about this stupid gay marriage controversy I started on Gather, in which people are biggots and I hide my head in my hands a lot.

How does saying my family is this person, this person and this person, prevent me (or anyone) from being poltically active?

I get what your'e saying -- how we live in a world where it's very easy to never be exposed to opinions we disagree with if we so choose it, but that's not what the chosen family thing was about. It was about my saying if I love someone like family who is anyone else to then insist that no, actually, I don't?

[saltbox.livejournal.com]

How does saying my family is this person, this person and this person, prevent me (or anyone) from being poltically active?

I'm not saying that you describing a particular community as your family *is* preventing you from being politically active. I'm saying that I worry that focusing too much on our communities of choice may take time away from being politically active, a phenomenon that I see happening a lot. Again, I acknowledged that I may have been misunderstanding the context for your post, and it seems that I did. What I focused (wrongly, it appears) on was the statement "but still don't really treat such connections as seriously as biological or legal connections?" I took legal connections as not simply those like "married by law" but perhaps also entailing "legal representatives"--i.e., congressmen, judges, etc. And those, I consider to be serious by their very nature--more so than biological relationships even.

[rm.livejournal.com]

AH, that's actually a much more interesting misinterpretation than the one I thought I saw.

One nice thing about NYC, since we don't drive, it's harder to live in "bubble world" so political/social activism is sort of unavoidable.

[saltbox.livejournal.com]

One nice thing about NYC, since we don't drive, it's harder to live in "bubble world" so political/social activism is sort of unavoidable.

I hear that, but you wouldn't believe the number of NY attorneys I know who simply go to work and go home and party with their friends, with no political activism in between. I actually see less of that in (perhaps more drive-ey) Madison, where there's a strong culture of political participation.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that makes sense to me. One thing about NYC, it can make you wish you lived in bubble-world. But it's sort of a big differentiator I find between NYC and LA, in particular and large swathes of the country in general. Social ills aren't hypothetical, they ride the subway with you.

[saltbox.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of LA. I do wish people participated more politically, though. I mean, electoral turnout in this country is so low! And that's not even counting agency "public meetings" where only a micro-percentage of the public ever attends even one in their lifetimes.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Yeah. As much as it goes against the ideals of America, I'm starting to think the Australians have something with the mandatory voting.

[saltbox.livejournal.com]

Me too (though there's a decent argument to be made that the Framers contemplated an active political citizenry, not the apathetic masses we have today.)