GirlChat #604797

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Re: Coming Out vs. the Toybox

Posted by Dissident on Thursday, October 30 2014 at 11:12:30AM
In reply to Re: Coming Out vs. the Toybox posted by Dante on Thursday, October 30 2014 at 07:36:36AM

Jack Summer knows how it STILL is. No allies or even open agnostics allowed. You either denounce us or you're vilified for supporting us.

There is, of course, a third option for Nons that's at least as common, if not more so, than those who choose to mindlessly vilify us has long been available, and this is currently the path most often taken by the more open-minded Nons: Be silent (or else!). Mr. Summer is one of the growing number of welcome exceptions to this rule, but only under the rule of a fourth option: Support and engagement in a thankfully non-PC fashion, but under the anonymity of an Internet handle due to the same understandable fears that keep MAPs hiding behind screen names.

Unfortunately, the often nervous silence of the third option for Nons has often been falsely taken as "evidence" by many on either side of the issues that almost all Nons without exception are insufferable antis who want us all either dead or in concentration camps. Mr. Summer is probably one of the earliest of the newer, more informed Nons who is taking the fourth option for open-minded and knowledge seeking individuals from outside of our community. This is thanks to the greater amount of scientifically accurate information that is gradually becoming available to the Non-MAP public.

Most Nons who have engaged us in the past under their real names were anti-choice, and they tended to flock around now defunct boards like Open Hands that specifically catered to Nons who wanted to "understand" us MAPs better, but only if we tried to "cure" ourselves and gave favor to mainstream beliefs about us. They realized that their socially acceptable ideologies kept them at reasonably low risk to associate with us under their real names. But Nons who are sympathetic with the pro-choice attitude, or at least not fully committed to the anti-choice/mainstream ideology and "on the fence" about matters, tended to keep completely quiet lest they be pegged as "pedophile supporters" and be subject to much of the same harassment and censuring that MAPs are, including loss of their children, loss of employment, and derision from their families.

The anti-choicers out there, both outside and within the MAP community, of course, were more than happy to use this logical but unfortunate silence to disingenuously proclaim that pro-choice Nons were more rare than fist-sized diamonds, and that being fervently anti-choice was therefore the only way for MAPs to approach and engage with the public and actually be listened to.

I have no doubt that currently anti-choice Nons greatly outnumber those who are pro-choice. That is a complete no-brainer and it's to be fully expected at the present time. But that doesn't mean that all of them are virulently anti. It also doesn't mean that a sizable chunk of them are not simply "on the fence" about the issues, and likewise do not often come in contact with the pro-choice view and the scientific data that refutes the commonly held beliefs, because that info and thoughtful discussions about it are still not nearly as easy to come upon as articles, stories, and film espousing the mainstream ideologies and assumptions.

For one thing, this is the reason why the pro-choice stance needs to be presented in certain places where the public can readily access it rather than go silent. Secondly, while I agree that at present MAP leaders should not be engaging the public with loud, "in your face" pro-choice proclamations, I think the success of B4U-ACT makes it quite clear that it's not necessary or even productive to lead the way with loud anti-choice proclamations either. There are enough reasonable, open-minded, intellectually inquisitive, and "on the fence" Nons who can be approached with a morally neutral stance on the more emotionally contentious issues that allow the respectful inclusion of all MAP participants in the discussions, and which offer compromise in the form of agreeing to responsibly follow the laws.

The contention that all Nons must be approached with an explicitly anti-choice stance in order for them to listen to and accept us is as condescending to them as it is to the MAP community as a whole. It's implying that all Nons are so overwhelmed by their emotions, and so inimical to reason and intellectual understanding, that they have to be pandered to. The point is, despite how many Nons are quite obviously truly insufferable and inflexible about the issue, that shouldn't be used to paint Nons as a whole like this. As long as they are approached in a cordial manner that takes their feelings into consideration, and we don't obnoxiously shove the pro-choice stance up their noses and expect them to spout loyalty to pro-choice attitudes right then and there (like some of the more zealous and inflexible pro-choicers who do not manage their anger well seem to insist), many of them are more than willing to both listen and focus attention on matters we can more easily achieve agreement on. We need to be willing to give Nons the chance to get to know us as people, and to make it clear we're people that they would want to get to know in the first place, before expecting them to listen to us and make any type of conclusion based on all of the information available. We have to understand that the idea of interacting with MAPs who are open about being MAPs is something that the majority of Nons aren't used to right now, and we need to be willing to take the time to build bridges with them in an honorable way.

Further, we need to show them the respect we want to receive from them, and that means not only stifling the counter-productive opinion that they deserve nothing but fiery ire from us, but also the belief that they can only be approached by us with self-flagellating pandering. Every group of people desires and deserves respect, but none of them will truly respect other groups who clearly have little respect for themselves.

Btw, Dante, I'm not the least bit surprised that you're aware of Tom O'Carroll's TOC Heretic blog :-)



Dissident





Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?