Ten Thousand Spoons When All You Need Is A Knife

[anarchist_nomad]

I enjoyed a hearty belly laugh this morning. Ah, the world can certainly be an ironic place sometimes!

To understand why I am saying this, my dear friends, a bit of historical context is necessary:

A few years ago, I was actively involved in the UK bisexual community. Wanting to give something back, I created Oxford BiFest -- a one-day event following the model used in London, Manchester, and Brighton. In some areas, we wanted to put our own stamp on the event, experimenting with improvements here and there, such as a larger venue. In other regards, however, we saw no need to re-invent the wheel, and so we borrowed enthusiastically from those who had blazed a trail before us. For instance, we adapted our logo from a recent BiFest elsewhere, and we used a catchy slogan that had been circulating in the community for over a decade.

That slogan was "Like Men? Like Women? Like Both?" Seems innocuous enough, right? What's what we thought, too -- especially in light of its long history of use. We could not have been more wrong. Posting a copy of our flier, which featured said slogan, started a massive flame war as we were vehemently accused of being exclusive and making people feel "erased" by our mentioning of men and women. I was personally excoriated as transphobic, discriminatory, and a bigot.

When the attacks ramped up, I was unwilling to risk tarnishing our event by entering the fray to speak up in my own defense. Thus, I immediately fell silent. Those attacking pressed on, however, whilst shouting loudly about how they were being silenced.[*] It couldn't help but call a Monty Python scene to mind: "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

At the time, a precious few spoke up against such unwarranted accusations, for which I am quite appreciative. Unfortunately, many others either joined the attacks or merely kept quiet. Sadly, silence has the de facto effect of resembling acceptance with such inappropriate behaviour.

Happily, the event itself was highly successful, despite all the online drama that preceded it! Yay! Thus, we decided to do it again one year later. When the time came, community leaders expressed concern that we would choose to use the same slogan, indicating that we should bow before the outrageous behaviour and personal attacks of the previous year. I was shocked that leaders could consider harassment as an acceptable means of initiating change in the community. After considerable discussion, cheshcat and I decided to leave the UK bisexual community in response, rather than condone bullying as legitimate behaviour. We shut down the Bisexual Oxford group, donated all its assets to charity, and found other projects worthy of our time and energy.

Unfortunately, we lost many friends in the process, yet we stood by our principles... which, ultimately, matters much more. I don't think that I could have lived with myself, looked at myself in the mirror each morning, if I had encouraged harassment and accepted intimidation as legitimate tactics. We walked away, but we did it with our consciences intact.

So, gentle readers, that is the requisite backstory -- are you ready for the tale of current irony? Excellent!

Let us now fast-forward three years to the present. One of the people who took part in attacking us for not being inclusive is an organizer for a polyamorous event. She played a particularly active role in the slander, and was the first to hurl accusations of bigotry when she called me "transphobic" for our mention of "men" and "women". Clearly one who strongly believes that we should not discriminate or be exclusive, right? Read on.

Today, I found out that her upcoming event, OpenCon UK, has barred men from registering unless they do so with a partner to accompany them. Say what?? So much for being all vehement about inclusivity -- this rule is about as discriminatory and exclusive as they come! As da_pupdetz like to say: "Whoops! Somebody screwed up!"

I have been actively polyamorous for over fifteen years, and taking part in poly events for at least twelve of those years. In that time, I have never before seen a bar against unaccompanied men, nor have I seen need of it. Not at the old "Bi Poly Rap sessions" in New York, not at Poly Chicago, not at OpenCon Catalonia -- nowhere. At times, it has been helpful to explicitly mention that a poly event is not the place for cruising, but an outright ban on men who are not accompanied is completely uncalled for!

Here is one last helping of extra-bonus irony: Besides being offensive in all the obvious ways, this ban also reinforces the heteronormative paradigm. Let's all come to talk about polyamoury in our nice little groups of two -- one man, one woman. Honestly, I would never have expected it!

Alas, the event in question has a perennial scheduling conflict with the Sooper Sekrit Pagan Festival, which I am running again this year. This is a shame -- I cannot boycott OpenCon UK for its moronic policy of discrimination and exclusivity, as I was already unable to attend. Le sigh.

Even so, the irony made me laugh out loud this morning, grinning whilst simultaneously shaking my head in disbelief. The world is a funny, funny place, indeed!

---

[*] Not the main irony promised for this post -- consider it bonus, gentle readers!

Comments

[selki.livejournal.com]

I am sorry you experienced such personal attacks, and am sure you are not transphobic or a bigot.

I think it is possible to act in a discriminatory way without having had any discriminatory intentions. I know I have, and I've been angry and defensive and hurt when it was pointed out to me. I think it is possible to express concern and a desire for a more inclusive slogan, however long the old one may have been in circulation, without bowing to personal attacks, endorsing harassment, or condoning bullying as legitimate behaviour, though obviously I don't know how said concern/desire was expressed to you. I think it would have been a mistake to re-use a slogan that clearly had made some people feel erased/excluded, however horribly they may have behaved about said feelings.

I understand the exclusionary issue with requiring a man to be accompanied by a partner to attend a poly event, but how is that heteronormative? Presumably one man could be accompanied by another man as his partner.

[anarchist-nomad.livejournal.com]

I am sorry you experienced such personal attacks, and am sure you are not transphobic or a bigot.

You've known me for how many years now? (I lose track) Were I a bigot, I would think you would have noticed by now! :-D

I think it would have been a mistake to re-use a slogan that clearly had made some people feel erased/excluded, however horribly they may have behaved about said feelings.

You and I may have to agree to disagree on this one, hon. The way I see it is that changing as a result of bullying and intimidation just encourages the use of those tactics. If harassment gets results, bullies will keep on doing it. Thus, looking at the issues morally, I found it a much worse offense for me to help legitimize harassment than to explicitly refer to "men" and "women" in a flier for a bisexual event.

I understand the exclusionary issue with requiring a man to be accompanied by a partner to attend a poly event, but how is that heteronormative?

Yes, the exclusionary and discriminatory part is pretty hard to miss, isn't it? ;-D

As for the other half, let me try to answer your question: Because the stated goal was to bar unaccompanied men in the interest of "gender balance" at this poly event, it struck me as leaning hetero. After all, if a poly family of twenty male partners signed up, that would definitely not help the stated goal!

[selki.livejournal.com]

I was at the gathering in 2001, but that was a little overwhelming for me and I'm not sure if we interacted there (if you were there). I think we mostly saw each other on the list for a few years. :-) *hug*

I am fine with disagreeing on this (and don't need a reply if you'd like to drop the topic). I read your follow-up reply below (e.g., Suddenly, the issue in question is no longer at the heart of the matter), and I get where you're coming from. I agree that opposing bullying is very important, am glad you care to make a stand against it, and understand your choice in your situation.

I am a little puzzled anyway at the idea of anyone getting worked up over the exclusive wording of that slogan for a *bi*sexual event (by definition, if not in intent, itself already rather binary-gendered!). OTOH, I'm the one writes organizations to add "other" or "prefer not to say" options to "male" and "female" in their surveys and forms, as one thing I can do for a friend of mine who was beaten and hospitalized for wearing a beard and a skirt at the same time. When I write, I say that binary gender language reinforces binary gender thinking (and resulting violence), and I've been thrilled to have made a difference once or twice with my little campaign (subsequently fixed forms/surveys).

Thanks for explaining about the heteronormative aspect. A gender balance goal alone leans heteronormative to my eyes. Taken together with the no-unescorted-males ... wow, peoples' selective vision is astonishing sometimes! *laughs*

I hope you have a wonderful trip into the woods (and back again)!

[anarchist-nomad.livejournal.com]

Hello again, hon!

Writing back quickly now, as cheshcat need to pack for The Gathering. We set out first thing tomorrow morning! Yay!

By the way, I'm guessing that we met briefly in 2001, as I have been to every P**T*** since 1997. It's one of those things where you've known someone for so long that the initial meeting is shrouded in time, if that makes sense.

Like you, I am fine with disagreeing on this. My only goal was to explain where I was coming from, to describe why it felt so imperative to take a stand. This is also why I wrote a second time, when I decided that my first response was a pile of poorly-written rubbish. :-D

I am very sorry that you will not be joining us at The Gathering this year, hon! Believe me, you will be missed! It sounds like there may be some plans a-brewing for New Years, though. So hopefully I will see you soon!

Have some virtual hugs for now... real ones to come later! *big hugs*

[anarchist-nomad.livejournal.com]

Just got back from having a quick snack. Whilst eating, I realised that I was not satisfied with my last reply to you (above)... so I mulled it over and thought how to better explain where I am coming from.

You said: I think it would have been a mistake to re-use a slogan that clearly had made some people feel erased/excluded, however horribly they may have behaved about said feelings.

To which I replied: looking at the issues morally, I found it a much worse offense for me to help legitimize harassment than to explicitly refer to "men" and "women" in a flier for a bisexual event.

That's pretty rubbish in terms of expressing myself clearly. I shall try again.

The way that I see it, a bully has a lot in common with a child who is throwing a temper tantrum. Suddenly, the issue in question is no longer at the heart of the matter. Even if that candy bar won't cause all their teeth to fall out, giving in and letting the child have it teaches the child that throwing temper tantrums is effective, and more will follow. The same is true when you give in to harassment by bullies.

There is a critical difference, though: With your child, if you give in to a temper tantrum, the next tantrum will most likely also be directed as you. It is poor parenting, but if that is what you want to choose for yourself, so be it. When dealing with a bully in a community, giving in encourages and legitimizes the behaviour... but the next episode will almost certainly not be directed at you. So changing as a result of such tactics would constitute positive reinforcement, making it all too likely that the bully will harass somebody else later. In that case, I would bear part of the moral responsibility for that harassment, as my actions had encouraged it.

This is the "moral offense" that I spoke about earlier, even if I expressed it incoherently. I find the idea of encouraging such harassment to be so ethically repugnant that I chose to leave the UK bisexual community, losing a goodly number of friends in the process, when it became clear that the community leaders expected us to submit to such tactics. It was a decision that came at some cost to us, but I strongly believe that it was the right thing to do. I won't be responsible for somebody else being put through that.

Hopefully, this explains where I am coming from better than I did before. You are still free to disagree, of course... but at least you might have a better understanding of my reasons. *hugs*

[cjtremlett.livejournal.com]

No one forced the bullies to behave in the way they did. If they had brought up the problems with the slogan in a reasonable way without resorting to name-calling and attacks, the changing of the slogan would not have been a problem. There are so many different ways this could have been handled without causing all this upheaval. And it was their choice to be unreasonable from the start.

I've seen that kind of behavior poison other communities. Giving in definitely means further problems down the road. Although they could have picked you as a target again, and scapegoated you. I've seen that happen to people, who eventually left the community in question, and the bullies went on to scapegoat someone else.

[anarchist-nomad.livejournal.com]

Yes, precisely. If their concerns had been brought forth in a respectful manner, we could have collaborated to find a solution. Once you think about it, changing the slogan is actually a trickier issue than you might first expect.

Oxford BiFest was conceived with a mission to do outreach and bring in new people, not solely catering to the existing UK bisexual community. According to feedback we have received, a catchy slogan like "Like Men? Like Women? Like Both?" did that job rather well. Proposed alternatives like "Hearts Not Parts" or "Like Men? Like Women? Like People?" come from a more sophisticated and intellectual deconstruction of gender and sexuality; such a catchphrase might not be so effective in attracting folks who are still figuring out their own gender and sexuality issues.

On the other hand, we also did not want to exclude genderqueer or genderfluid people... and it was certainly not our aim to offend. Had we been approached respectfully with these concerns, everyone invested could have worked together towards an ideal solution. It's a trickier issue than it first seems, to be sure, but it is by no means an intractable problem!

Unfortunately, none of this happened. Instead, there was mocking and derision, escalating into a flame war and personal attacks. That's not the atmosphere of trust required to sit down and solve problems in good faith. At that point, giving in would have been rewarding the harassment... and I think I explained above why I feel that I have a moral obligation not to encourage bullies.

In the end, the result was exactly what you describe in your last paragraph. Those who used intimidation and harassment got their way, and those who tried to give something back to the community in a spirit of love ended up leaving the community entirely. And, just as in your example, the bullies probably did go on to scapegoat someone else. The sole consolation that I have is that I know I did nothing to encourage or legitimize their horrendous behaviour.

*hugs* Thankfully, I belong to some pretty awesome communities -- like my Chicago network, or the P**T*** gathering in the NorthEast, or Lansing (where I consider myself an "honorary" member of the LPV! Hooray!