Jump to content
Magni

Aromantic Political Activism

Recommended Posts

(Inspired by this tumblr thread)
 

We tend to focus a lot on spreading awareness and community building, which are important, but it's also useful to consider other aspects of aro activism, including more political issues.  Here are some issues which occurred to me:

 

1. Marriage: The legal benefits of marriage and lack of alternate options….having some way to declare someone as “family” for purposes of medical leave and such without requiring marriage/romance. Also, partnering with the polyamory community on this because they also face issues with the current system of marriage.

 

2. Adoption: the adoption system has lots of issues in general with what sort of parents they consider “capable” and how that can be an issue against queer people in general, but more specifically, so single aro people can better adopt children if they wish.

 

3. Workplace Protections: the queer community in general still needs protections against discrimination, but it does affect us too, and it would be important to include not only that they can’t discriminate against people for their sexual orientation, but also their romantic orientation. (This is the issue I personally would be most concerned about tbh)

 

4. Education: along with wanting schools to teach about queer identities in general, making sure Aromantic is included.

 

5. Healthcare: this has some overlap with my first point about “spousal” benefits, but generally making sure aro people aren’t discriminated against in healthcare. This includes mental health, and making sure we could seek therapy without having to educate them about our identities or have our identity medicalized. Additionally, I believe there is something about single people receiving less aggressive treatment options and therefore having worse outcomes, so preventing that kinda thing too.

 

6. Support Networks: most adults seem to get their social needs met via their romantic partnerships, or find community via religious groups. There’s generally a need for non-denominational groups to provide support and community, because people generally need that sort of thing, and feeling isolated can be detrimental to people’s health. One form of this might be lgbtqa+ community centers in general, ones that are alcohol-free community resource centers (which other parts of the queer community want too).

 

So, what are some other aro-related political issues you can think of? Or, elaborate on any of the aforementioned issues and which things might be more feasible to work on, etc.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 2010s everything is politicized, most people are already tired of politics, please don't make aromanticism a political issue. Aromantics shouldn't forcibly re-educate people by pushing for law changes, if there has to be a cultural change away from pair-bonding let's it happen naturally.

 

Adoption should above all give the child a responsible, stable and mature environment, and in most cases this means the conventional family.

 

Workplace - I don't think anybody was ever sacked for not being in a romantic relationship. Anyway, people should not advertise their private life at work.

 

Healthcare - a good point: "making sure we could seek therapy without having to educate them about our identities or have our identity medicalized". I had to quit psychotherapy because the therapist tried to hard to awaken my romantic side. Though I'm happy with leaving this nonsense, I suspect psychotherapy is a cant in general. I recommend reading a very good book on this issue: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychology-as-religion-cult-self-worship/dp/B00072QQRC

 

I also agree that  "having some way to declare someone as “family” for purposes of medical leave and such without requiring marriage/romance" and "alcohol-free community resource centers" are both good ideas, though I wouldn't like to see the resource centres politicized.

 

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Spacenik86 said:

In the 2010s everything is politicized, most people are already tired of politics, please don't make aromanticism a political issue. Aromantics shouldn't forcibly re-educate people by pushing for law changes, if there has to be a cultural change away from pair-bonding let's it happen naturally.

 

I... You do understand what the purpose of politics is, yes..? Politics decide the policies and systems that structure our lives. Everything that has to do with the way we live within our society is a political issue. I can understand being tired of "republicans vs. democrats" or "Brexit vs. EU" type politics, but politics also includes things like "How much of our taxes should go towards education?" or "Should our town sell the town green to real estate developers?"

Everything is politicized because when our lives are inherently built within a net of laws and policies and decisions, changes to those things don't just magically spring up overnight via wishful thinking. Everything is a political issue. If we want rights for ourselves, that's a political issue.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Magni said:

1. Marriage: [...]

 

2. Adoption: [...]

 

6. Support Networks: [...]

 

A lot of these are intertwined with combating the norm of the nuclear family, I figure. You've mentioned the polyamorous community and "the queer community" as communities with overlapping goals and aims here, and to that I'd also add decolonialists and anticapitalists.

 

8 hours ago, Spacenik86 said:

In the 2010s everything is politicized,

 

lmao, is that something that started in the 2010s, or is that just when you started paying attention?

 

8 hours ago, Spacenik86 said:

Anyway, people should not advertise their private life at work.

 

Do you think people are being inappropriate when they wear wedding rings or mention their spouses at work?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Magni said:

The legal benefits of marriage and lack of alternate options….having some way to declare someone as “family” for purposes of medical leave and such without requiring marriage/romance. Also, partnering with the polyamory community on this because they also face issues with the current system of marriage.

In my country there is an alternate option I think : the PACS. But it's for couples too I think (it was create mostly for couple of the same sex, when marriage wasn't allowed for them, but any couple coud use it; I Wonder if a QPR could too (well, they won't verify if you are a romantic couple or not, and there is no coding ceremony like the wedding).

 

11 hours ago, Magni said:

2. Adoption: the adoption system has lots of issues in general with what sort of parents they consider “capable” and how that can be an issue against queer people in general, but more specifically, so single aro people can better adopt children if they wish.

I think that's something where we could be unite wih other LGBT groups. As Coyote said, it is link to the nuclear family. There are debates about procreation where I lived here (in French it's PMA, procréation médicalement assistée), because they cant to open it to same sex couples. The debates are mainly about the fact that "a family is a dad and a mum" (same argument when that there were about gay marriage). When I talk with my mum about my desire to have children, but not a husband, she says exactly the same thing. Though, she is more open to the idea of adoption while single than having my own child while single.

 

11 hours ago, Magni said:

4. Education: along with wanting schools to teach about queer identities in general, making sure Aromantic is included.

Yes! One of our main problem is visibility and this would help a lot.

 

11 hours ago, Magni said:

5. Healthcare: this has some overlap with my first point about “spousal” benefits, but generally making sure aro people aren’t discriminated against in healthcare. This includes mental health, and making sure we could seek therapy without having to educate them about our identities or have our identity medicalized. Additionally, I believe there is something about single people receiving less aggressive treatment options and therefore having worse outcomes, so preventing that kinda thing too.

One of the Reason I'm not seeing a therapist right now (except for my lack of money) is that I'm too scared he or she wants to "fix" my aromanticism. Even if I'm perfectly fine alone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Coyote said:

lmao, is that something that started in the 2010s, or is that just when you started paying attention?

 

There always were some political maniacs, but this sort of attitude wasn't so prominent before social media and full-time TV news channels. The sort of attitude was typical only of full-time radicals,  now it started to pervade mainstream society. It might have to do with decline of spirituality as well, the more energy goes to the spiritual engine, the less is left for the political engine.

 

Quote

Do you think people are being inappropriate when they wear wedding rings or mention their spouses at work?

 

They just talk about someone who is a huge part of their life, and don't see it as potentially divisive because most people view it as a normal human issue, not something political. BTW, talking about your aromanticism to your co-worker within a context of friendly communication is absolutely OK. It would be akin to saying that you're a Jehovah Witness and explaining their tenets. But aggressive activism, or aggressive proselytising, should be kept outside the workplace.

 

If I wore a conspicuous badge with the aromantic arrows:

aro.png

 

How would it be different from wearing a conspicuous religious emblem?

 

To be frank, people would be less likely to react negatively to the arrows, because the symbol is not widely known outside of our subculture, and most peeps would see it as nothing more than a fashion statement.

 

18 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

 

Everything is politicized because when our lives are inherently built within a net of laws and policies and decisions, changes to those things don't just magically spring up overnight via wishful thinking. Everything is a political issue. If we want rights for ourselves, that's a political issue. 

 

 

Not necessarily. Only in a totalitarian state politics permeated every aspect of life. In a free society, you can just live your life without paying much attention to politics. Look how many people don't even bother to cast a ballot? Don't get me wrong, we absolutely should vote. However, we should get a sense of meaning from our personal lives, rather than from politics. Elevating politics to the position of most important thing in all human experience is just wrong.

 

We already have the necessary human rights, like freedom of expression. The point is to use them wisely to spread our message.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 7:44 AM, Magni said:

(Inspired by this tumblr thread)
 

We tend to focus a lot on spreading awareness and community building, which are important, but it's also useful to consider other aspects of aro activism, including more political issues.  Here are some issues which occurred to me:

 

1. Marriage: The legal benefits of marriage and lack of alternate options….having some way to declare someone as “family” for purposes of medical leave and such without requiring marriage/romance. Also, partnering with the polyamory community on this because they also face issues with the current system of marriage.

There might be some useful information on the Unmarried Equality website.
These issues are becoming more obvious as marriage declines.

 

On 7/11/2019 at 7:44 AM, Magni said:

3. Workplace Protections: the queer community in general still needs protections against discrimination, but it does affect us too, and it would be important to include not only that they can’t discriminate against people for their sexual orientation, but also their romantic orientation. (This is the issue I personally would be most concerned about tbh)

These can include the less obvious things like lack of promotion.

 

On 7/11/2019 at 9:10 AM, Spacenik86 said:

Workplace - I don't think anybody was ever sacked for not being in a romantic relationship. Anyway, people should not advertise their private life at work.

It might be phrased as "not being a team player". e.g. the likes of failing to turn up to a workplace social as a couple.
Also romantic relationships are very much public. 

 

On 7/11/2019 at 7:44 AM, Magni said:

4. Education: along with wanting schools to teach about queer identities in general, making sure Aromantic is included.

Education needs to be a lot broader than just schools (and children).

 

On 7/11/2019 at 7:44 AM, Magni said:

6. Support Networks: most adults seem to get their social needs met via their romantic partnerships, or find community via religious groups. There’s generally a need for non-denominational groups to provide support and community, because people generally need that sort of thing, and feeling isolated can be detrimental to people’s health. One form of this might be lgbtqa+ community centers in general, ones that are alcohol-free community resource centers (which other parts of the queer community want too).

Something which can be an issue here is Skin Hunger which I'm not sure that highly platonic "community/resource centres" are going to be able to address.
For many aros their social needs can include romantic coded activities. Thus there needs to be inclusion in respect of these.
The other problem is that alloromantics frequently seek romantic partners everywhere they go. Which could mean that aros will still be at disadvantage, especially romance repulsed ones. Also why the "alcohol free" bit?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good list.

I'd add awareness about romantic harassment to the work place category (and maybe to education in general) If someone is making romantic gestures at you, like asking you out or bringing romantic gifts even though you've made clear you're not interested in a romantic relationship, that shouldn't be allowed.

Could have a lot of common ground with feminism and organizations that seeks to question gender roles and dynamics.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mark said:

It might be phrased as "not being a team player". e.g. the likes of failing to turn up to a workplace social as a couple.

 

True! I never thought of it as a code. Did you think along the lines of: they think you have a partner, just don't want to introduce em to the workplace?

 

Education needs to be a lot broader than just schools (and children).

Nowadays the Internet is the best tool to educate yourself.

 

Also why the "alcohol free" bit?

Presence of drunk people can discourage people to visit a place, not to mention it's not conducive for quality conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaaaaaaanyway. Good post, Magni. I think this has some really good points and I do think we should try to work on these things.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good list, i can't think of anything to add.

This is true that peoples may know (sometime) about homophobia, transphobia, etc... aromantism and arophobia are never mentionned and just ignored. I never see it classified as "oppression" outside of some part of the queer/lgbt+ community (again, sometime. And mostly in aro space).

 

(Here is a similar article in a french website, if someone is interested : https://lavieenqueer.wordpress.com/2019/03/13/les-revendications-politiques-des-aromantiques/. It's also about political activism, and the points are more or less the sames. )

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cristal Gris said:

I never see it classified as "oppression" outside of some part of the queer/lgbt+ community (again, sometime. And mostly in aro space).

And sometimes, even in lgbt+ place, there is debates ro know if we are oppressed or not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nonmerci said:

And sometimes, even in lgbt+ place, there is debates ro know if we are oppressed or not.

 

And now that I think about it, even when peoples try to be respectfull to queer/lgbt+ peoples, you bet that they forget about aromantism. Still amatonormative too.

 

Like, i am very glad you respect my gender, hypothetical person, but don't ever mock me because of my aromantism, even if you don't know what i it is please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cristal Gris said:

And now that I think about it, even when peoples try to be respectfull to queer/lgbt+ peoples, you bet that they forget about aromantism. Still amatonormative too

The show Riverdale is a perfect example of that. It is prise for his representation of LGBT people... but completely erase Jughead's aroaceness. And if you point it out, there will always be someone to say "what his aromanticism would bring to the show" (because apparantly,  you should justifier yourself for not changing something), or "Jughead wasn't aro, he was gay, that was how gay people was portraits before, by a non interest in girls!" (even if gis asexuality (meaning aro ace I guess) was confirmed; plus how are you suppose to portray a character that assume his aroaceness without making him not interesting in girls???).

 

I know I talk about it a lot, but I'm still not over it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 3:41 PM, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

Everything is a political issue. If we want rights for ourselves, that's a political issue.

 

Speaking for myself only: I don't really find I am denied any important political rights as a result of my romantic orientation (or lack thereof). By historical standards, I seem to have an enormous amount of freedom to live my life in the way I choose to. The issue for me is not so much feeling actively persecuted by social/legal structures*, but more just struggling to find IRL people on the same wavelength as me (in interpersonal relationsips, yes, but also in other aspects). But I wouldn't seek to frame that as a political issue. I just find it a bit personally disappointing :(

 

I think part of what @Spacenik86 is getting at is a tendency for the internet to fragment peòple into quite niche online 'communities' which can then, by design, become largely insulated from outside criticism (constructive or otherwise). This can, perhaps, tend to make people overly defensive and somewhat unprepared for when they venture outside that community and encounter actual contrary views? (I've tried to phrase that last paragraph as politely as possible; I'm sure you're aware of less polite phrasings of it!)

 

What @Holmbo mentioned does strike me as a big cultural blind-spot though. As in, it would be nice if conceps like "romantic harrasment" and "romantic consent" were anywhere near as universally acknowledged as the analagous concepts of "sexual harrasment" and "sexual consent". 

 

 

*You can make the case that existing legal frameworks privilege marriage and aren't good at legitimising other relationship archetypes, sure. Like Elizabeth Brake did in Minimizing Marriage. But she wasn't exactly calling for revolution on all fronts in that book! More like liberal reforms/tweaks to an existing contract law framework that already grants people the core political freedoms, but is currenly a bit inflexible in the inter-personal space.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Spacenik86 said:

There always were some political maniacs, but this sort of attitude wasn't so prominent before social media and full-time TV news channels.

 

Do you also think that social media and full-time TV news channels weren't a thing until the 2010s?

 

13 hours ago, Spacenik86 said:

But aggressive activism [...] should be kept outside the workplace.

 

Oh wow do I have some bad news for you about workers' unions.

 

13 hours ago, Spacenik86 said:

If I wore a conspicuous badge with the aromantic arrows: How would it be different from wearing a conspicuous religious emblem?

 

Are you asking me to differentiate between them? Because I don't really care to and I don't see what point that's furthering.

 

13 hours ago, Spacenik86 said:

Only in a totalitarian state politics permeated every aspect of life.

 

I take it you're either not familiar with or vehemently in disagreement with the 50-year-old slogan "the personal is political," but for frame of reference, I think that's more or less the school of thought @Jot-Aro Kujo is coming from here (correct me if I'm wrong, Alex). Since this is a point of contention, would you care to explain what your own operational definition of "politics" is here? I'd have guessed earlier that you were thinking of "politics" as only strictly delimited to "electoral politics" or perhaps "directly pertaining to institutional government authority and policy," but now I'm not so sure.

 

14 hours ago, Spacenik86 said:

We already have the necessary human rights

 

Who's "we"?

 

13 hours ago, Mark said:

Also why the "alcohol free" bit?

Access for youth and recovering alcoholics, I presume.

 

1 hour ago, NullVector said:

You can make the case that existing legal frameworks privilege marriage and aren't good at legitimising other relationship archetypes, sure.

 

Yes, I think there's a very good case for that.

 

1 hour ago, NullVector said:

But she wasn't exactly calling for revolution on all fronts in that book! More like liberal reforms/tweaks to an existing contract law framework that already grants people the core political freedoms, but is currenly a bit inflexible in the inter-personal space.

 

Is that... a criticism? I can't tell what you're getting at. You're replying to Alex, who was saying that everything is a political issue, and here you're acknowledging a political issue, but then qualifying it with "but Brake wasn't exactly calling for revolution." Are you saying that political issues aren't political issues unless there's a call for revolution involved, or are you saying something else?

 

In any case, I think the previous posts here in this very thread demonstrate a couple of things already -- in order to get anywhere with "aro activism," or more generally, a movement against amatonormativity, you will face at least two cognitive hurdles: one in the form of "private sphere" individualism, & another in the form of the "legal rights" framework. People may be generally inclined to think of activism & advocacy in terms of gaining the "right" to something (like the right to marry), which doesn't really apply to well to something like, say, dealing with mistreatment by a therapist who views romance as inherently healthy. Then, like I said, you've also got people used to thinking in terms of a divide between "public" and "private" life, where (a)romanticism is something to be relegated to the private sphere, alongside sex and religion.

 

There's a long rhetorical precedent to look into of feminist and LGBTQ+ activists dealing with these same hurdles, if you're interested.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Coyote said:

I can't tell what you're getting at

All I was implying here is that, on a spectrum between "we are being terribly oppressed by this system and must burn it to the ground and begin anew!" and "things are, fundamentally, reasonable enough, but there is room for improvements in some areas" my sense was that Brake's legal critique was leaning more to the latter end. That qualification was there because my overall point was that I don't personally feel like a victim of oppression necessitating big changes in the political arena. Rather minor tweaks would seem sufficient. So aromanticism is not in the main a 'political' issue, at least not for me. I encounter it more as an unfortunate personal coincidence that I happen to oftentimes feel lonely and isolated from others as a result of being 'a collection of rare oddities' as @SoulWolf puts it.

 

32 minutes ago, Coyote said:

There's a long rhetorical precedent to look into of feminist and LGBTQ+ activists dealing with these same hurdles, if you're interested

Sure, I'm interested in learning more if you have some links to stuff, book suggestions, etc. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NullVector said:

Speaking for myself only: I don't really find I am denied any important political rights as a result of my romantic orientation (or lack thereof). By historical standards, I seem to have an enormous amount of freedom to live my life in the way I choose to.

I do think for younger, financially-secure, and/or abled people there aren't a lot of issues (not that I'm saying you're any of those) but once you consider other factors money becomes a big issue. 

So, for one, kids are expected to take care of their parents when they get older. And I think it's probably safe to say that aros are either less likely to want kids, don't have the proper supports to raise kids as a single parent, or can't adopt because of legal barriers.

Disabled people also have a lot of issues such as having higher healthcare costs and needing more support in general, and while sometimes having a romantic partner can alleviate some of that we also need to make sure that we're providing proper care for all disabled people, not just ones in relationships. 

Then there's the harassment many of us have received due to things like the Tumblr flamewars- probably not the most traditional political thing but considering it was a campaign that was trying to construct us as being fundamentally evil for existing, I'd say that's pretty damn political.

And these are just the ones I came up at a moment's notice.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, assignedgothatbirth said:

I do think for younger, financially-secure, and/or abled people there aren't a lot of issues (not that I'm saying you're any of those) but once you consider other factors money becomes a big issue

Yeah, I think that is a very valid point. I wasn't ever saying that aromanticism wasn't or shouldn't be a political issue, by the way. Just that I don't personally experience it that way (hence that prefacing of my comment with "Speaking for myself only").

 

That slogan of "the personal is political": my understanding was it emerged out of the experience of 60s social activism (e.g. 2nd wave feminism) in contexts where people would share personal experiences and came to recognise that those experiences were widely shared. Therefore their personal difficulties were attributable to systemic factors (political) and not merely personal 'quirks' or idiosyncracies. But my experience of aromanticism is kind of the opposite! My inner experience of relationships doesn't seem to be shared by others (at least, others not on this forum!) and does therefore seem attributable to personal 'quirks' and idiosyncracies! So my aromanticism is not a 'personal' that I experience as 'political' (emphasis on 'my' and 'I' here, as I am some of the things you mentioned: able-bodied, young(ish), financially independent(ish)) . Perhaps this perception would change though if I met and interacted with an IRL aro community?

 

I can see that romantic relationships could plug gaps in support systems that are difficult to plug in other ways, given how those systems are set up and legally framed (to not legitimise other relationship archetypes). Which might not be felt as a political issue for someone that can largely ignore state institutional structures, but I can see might become highly 'political' for someone that has to interact with those structures day-to-day.

 

Having kids for elderly care strikes me as less of an issue to be honest. I think in practice (at least in 'the West') it's often somewhat of a romantic fantasy parents have. In practice, the children are often so busy with their own families and financial troubles that the duty of care is passed on to institutions (e.g. nursing homes). Using the (probably significant) extra money you save from not having kids to afford a better standard of elderly care would strike me as, 9 times out of 10, the more reliable plan for old age. I could be wrong here though...

 

Tumblr is, well, not something I have anything to do with. Probably just showing my age there though xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NullVector said:

 

Speaking for myself only: I don't really find I am denied any important political rights as a result of my romantic orientation (or lack thereof). By historical standards, I seem to have an enormous amount of freedom to live my life in the way I choose to. The issue for me is not so much feeling actively persecuted by social/legal structures*, but more just struggling to find IRL people on the same wavelength as me (in interpersonal relationsips, yes, but also in other aspects). But I wouldn't seek to frame that as a political issue. I just find it a bit personally disappointing :(

I totally get what you mean. I also don't feel oppressed in any way by my romantic orientation and I'd hesitate to lump myself in with other LGBT+ categories that faces hostility or discrimination. I think my dissatisfaction with the system is not about my own discomforts but rather a general feeling that amatonormativity is hurtful to everyone. We need a society which takes into account other close relationships just as much as romantic ones.


I agree though with @assignedgothatbirth that it's a privileged for me to not have to worry about financial aspects of being single for life. But that's a problem who face all singles, whetter they're aro or not.

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, assignedgothatbirth said:

Then there's the harassment many of us have received due to things like the Tumblr flamewars- probably not the most traditional political thing but considering it was a campaign that was trying to construct us as being fundamentally evil for existing, I'd say that's pretty damn political.

 I'm glad that I'm not into Tumblr. People are crazy. But I think that when aro will be more know,  this is thought we'll have to face. People love to hate things they don't understand.

 

1 hour ago, Holmbo said:

. I also don't feel oppressed in any way by my romantic orientation and I'd hesitate to lump myself in with other LGBT+ categories that faces hostility or discrimination.

True that oppressed may not be the best word, and that a lot of things we have to face is shared by single allos. But I still think they are thing we are alone to face, and can be consider as oppression. Like, therapists trying to "fix" your orientation because it consider it part of your disease. People assuming you're ill because of your orientation (I hear it more about aces though), or that you are heartless (in particular to allo aro who want sex without romance).

Now, I don't know if this is political or not. But there is stigmatization of aro I think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Cristal Gris said:

Good list, i can't think of anything to add.

This is true that peoples may know (sometime) about homophobia, transphobia, etc... aromantism and arophobia are never mentionned and just ignored. I never see it classified as "oppression" outside of some part of the queer/lgbt+ community (again, sometime. And mostly in aro space).

One of the ways in which arophobia can manifest is as singlism.
As this kind of study shows many people remain oblivious to (or justify/excuse) it even when directly contrasted with other forms of discrimination. This, undoubtedly, includes those who are on the receiving end of it.
 

22 hours ago, nonmerci said:

And sometimes, even in lgbt+ place, there is debates ro know if we are oppressed or not.

Along with "debates" if aros (especially those who are heterosexual) are "queer enough".

 

12 hours ago, Coyote said:

In any case, I think the previous posts here in this very thread demonstrate a couple of things already -- in order to get anywhere with "aro activism," or more generally, a movement against amatonormativity, you will face at least two cognitive hurdles: one in the form of "private sphere" individualism, & another in the form of the "legal rights" framework. People may be generally inclined to think of activism & advocacy in terms of gaining the "right" to something (like the right to marry),

In the case of marriage I feel that what's often been overlooked in political advocacy is the "expectation"/"obligation" side of amantonormativity.

 

12 hours ago, Coyote said:

which doesn't really apply to well to something like, say, dealing with mistreatment by a therapist who views romance as inherently healthy.

Many therapists appear to be strongly of the view of everything being "personal". So possibly unlikely to even recognise something like Minority stress especially in connection to an "invisible minority". Though there is some recognition of society in relation to mental health.

 

13 hours ago, Coyote said:

Then, like I said, you've also got people used to thinking in terms of a divide between "public" and "private" life, where (a)romanticism is something to be relegated to the private sphere, alongside sex and religion.

The curious thing is that often romantic things are quite public very much so in comparison with sex. This can also apply to religion. 

 

4 hours ago, NullVector said:

But my experience of aromanticism is kind of the opposite! My inner experience of relationships doesn't seem to be shared by others (at least, others not on this forum!) and does therefore seem attributable to personal 'quirks' and idiosyncracies! So my aromanticism is not a 'personal' that I experience as 'political' (emphasis on 'my' and 'I' here, as I am some of the things you mentioned: able-bodied, young(ish), financially independent(ish))

Since aromanticism is defined by an absence of something (romantic attraction) the result is a fairly diverse group of people. The "loudest" narrative, especially online, may not be the most representative.

 

4 hours ago, NullVector said:

Perhaps this perception would change though if I met and interacted with an IRL aro community?

There seem be very few of these...

 

4 hours ago, Holmbo said:

I totally get what you mean. I also don't feel oppressed in any way by my romantic orientation and I'd hesitate to lump myself in with other LGBT+ categories that faces hostility or discrimination.

I do feel oppressed. With virtually all off the discrimination being indirect. Which is often the hardest to challenge, especially when institutionalised, since it looks like treating everybody equally.

 

3 hours ago, nonmerci said:

But I still think they are thing we are alone to face, and can be consider as oppression. Like, therapists trying to "fix" your orientation because it consider it part of your disease. People assuming you're ill because of your orientation (I hear it more about aces though), or that you are heartless (in particular to allo aro who want sex without romance).

My experience include being assumed to be ace; being disbelieved when I say that I like various romantic coded things; being seen as unreasonable/irrational expressing frustration about amantonormativity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mark said:

One of the ways in which arophobia can manifest is as singlism.
As this kind of study shows many people remain oblivious to (or justify/excuse) it even when directly contrasted with other forms of discrimination. This, undoubtedly, includes those who are on the receiving end of it.

Interesting! I never heard about it before. It mean "being disadvantaged because you are single" right? I guess it would be appliable for most aros. Not all, but most. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, nonmerci said:

The show Riverdale is a perfect example of that. It is prise for his representation of LGBT people... but completely erase Jughead's aroaceness. And if you point it out, there will always be someone to say "what his aromanticism would bring to the show" (because apparantly,  you should justifier yourself for not changing something), or "Jughead wasn't aro, he was gay, that was how gay people was portraits before, by a non interest in girls!" (even if gis asexuality (meaning aro ace I guess) was confirmed; plus how are you suppose to portray a character that assume his aroaceness without making him not interesting in girls???).

It's possible for homophobes to use similar reasoning...
 

On 7/12/2019 at 10:34 AM, Holmbo said:

I'd add awareness about romantic harassment to the work place category (and maybe to education in general) If someone is making romantic gestures at you, like asking you out or bringing romantic gifts even though you've made clear you're not interested in a romantic relationship, that shouldn't be allowed.

Could have a lot of common ground with feminism and organizations that seeks to question gender roles and dynamics.

There are also related issues of romantic consent (including if romance should have an "age of consent") and romantic content warnings/ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mark said:

As this kind of study shows many people remain oblivious to (or justify/excuse) it even when directly contrasted with other forms of discrimination. This, undoubtedly, includes those who are on the receiving end of it.

Interesting study!

 

Another thing, I don't know if it considers as oppression or not, but the fact that in tv show, a single person will always be show as someone sad,  or someone who lack something in his life.  Or someone who is afraid of commitment, or someone who wants to "have fun" before dating (meaning having sex with multiple persons). For allos, romantic feelings are the best feelings in the world (at least they present it this way in movies or books),  so if you don't feel it, you are unhappy pr unsatisfied. This is tiring to always see single people portrayed like this.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...