Jump to content
Holmbo

Do you want to change the society?

Recommended Posts

I feel like I'm a little late to the party, but sometimes things work out so well. I've been so frustrated with this exact topic recently in my life. I agree with a lot of the things said in this topic. I'll try my best not to repeat what other have already said..

 

On 5/13/2017 at 3:20 AM, Holmbo said:

-Do you feel like people in general, just not aromantics, would be happier in a less amatonormative society?

 

Of course, I think people would be happier. I'm a child of a broken family, so I can't help but believe that a less amatonormative society could lower divorce rates, and just make people happier. But aside from nit-picky things like that, I think even platonic relationships would benefit from a less amatonomative society. In the same way that toxic romantic relationships are glorified, I believe that friendships can also be strained or toxic in the same ways. Quick storytime: I was recently talking to an acquaintance about nothing in particular. I told a story about one of my best friends, identifying them as my "best friend." Later, I spoke of another best friend, calling them "another of my best friends." And again mentioned another best friend, calling them "another one of my best friends." At that point, the person chuckled a little and condescendingly said, "Well you sure have a lot of best friends." Maybe I'm being dramatic, but yes! I have many best friends. I love them all very much. Who made up the rule that you can only have one best friend in this world populated by 7.5 billion people? Why shame people for that? It's ridiculous. [Okay rant over]. Jealousy is glorified in all relationships and I just really wish I could change that aspect of society more than anything.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately too. Namely because two of my close friends have been more absent from my life than usual--I suspect, due to their romantic relationships. And one of them's my queerplatonic friend, sooooooooooooo. *casually sips my aromatic tea*

 

Do you feel like people in general, just not aromantics, would be happier in a less amatonormative society?

 

Yeah. Because amatonormativity reinforces a hierarchy where there's only one form of love--romantic love--that's valued. To the point at which, you're expected to give up everything to prioritize romantic love. And that's not only unhealthy--that prevents us from fully experiencing the richness of all the other forms of non-romantic love that surround us every day. And I think that's terrible. Imagine if you were only allowed to read the majority of your books from a certain genre, for the rest of your life. That's the absurdity of amatonormativity.

 

Do you act on your thoughts about romance in other contexts than just in your own life choices? Like advocate for less romance in pop culture or point out to your friends that some things considered romantic is just toxic and abusive.

 

I sort of have to? I'm one of those people who feel such a strong sense of morality, that I absolutely must do something if I consider it right. I've had lengthy discussions with alloromantics about issues like toxic monogamy (which is a subtype of amatonormativity), jealousy, polyamoury, and being queerplatonic. I try to educate everyone. I love it when I'm surprised with understanding, but sometimes it hurts. Like once, I was complaining about how amatonormativity prevents my queerplatonic relationships from being taken seriously, and the dilemma I face between choosing to call my formal platonic relationships "friendships" or "relationships" in order to properly communicate the level of intimacy I have. And an alloromantic friend of mine said, "Well, why can't it be both?" As if it really were that simple. 

 

I will admit, I have a tendency towards cynicism. To borrow from international relations theory, social norms are a structure, and individuals within society are agents. I don't believe that we have enough agency to fully overcome our structure. That is to say, I don't believe it's possible for aromantics to have their narrative respected in an amatonormative structure, and because amatonormative people benefit from the status quo, I don't believe they have any incentive to take our stories seriously either. I've gotten fatalistic with all my alloromantic friendships lately. I'm at a point where, if I were fully honest with myself, I don't think either of my queerplatonic relationships are serious anymore, because both of my partners are alloromantic. I believe that my friends, my queerplatonic partners, are only with me as long as they're interested in playing this game of friendship with me, until their next romance sweeps them off of their feet, and out of my life.

 

I feel like alloromantics--in this society--can't see beyond a hierarchical conception of romance > friendship, and I feel like it's not my responsibility to change their mind. I educate because I have to, because I can't lead a dishonest life, because I can't live in silence. I educate even though I am convinced that no one cares. Desire to educate others on amatonormativity isn't a matter of right or wrong for me. It's a state of nature, as is with all other forms of activism I've found myself doing. 

 

I'm starting to think that commitment to my instinctive sense of morality is probably the only legitimate form of commitment I'm ever going to have. Meant that in the self-deprecating, smug aromantic way.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/05/2017 at 3:17 PM, Just like Jughead said:

I only want to change it in the fact I want society to leave me alone about my life. 


I can't relate to this at all. Possibly because I'm not especially introverted.
From my PoV society already has far too many barriers to involvement and engagement.
(Saying "no" to an unwanted offer is always an option. But how do you say "yes" to something which is never offered?)

8 hours ago, kaseythefairy said:

 In the same way that toxic romantic relationships are glorified, I believe that friendships can also be strained or toxic in the same ways. Quick storytime: I was recently talking to an acquaintance about nothing in particular. I told a story about one of my best friends, identifying them as my "best friend." Later, I spoke of another best friend, calling them "another of my best friends." And again mentioned another best friend, calling them "another one of my best friends." At that point, the person chuckled a little and condescendingly said, "Well you sure have a lot of best friends." Maybe I'm being dramatic, but yes! I have many best friends. I love them all very much. Who made up the rule that you can only have one best friend in this world populated by 7.5 billion people?

I've never really understood the "best friend" concept.
I find it hard to think of an example where I would ever seek a singular person to do anything with. Effectively "one is minimum", whereas it often seems more common and socially acceptable to have a "one is maximum" outlook.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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


I can't relate to this at all. Possibly because I'm not especially introverted.
From my PoV society already has far too many barriers to involvement and engagement.
(Saying "no" to an unwanted offer is always an option. But how do you say "yes" to something which is never offered?)

I've never really understood the "best friend" concept.
I find it hard to think of an example where I would ever seek a singular person to do anything with. Effectively "one is minimum", whereas it often seems more common and socially acceptable to have a "one is maximum" outlook.

 

It's possibly an introvert/extrovert thing. It drains me to have anything beyond 2-3 close friends. My ideal right now would actually be all acquaintances. 0 is the maximum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I've never really understood the "best friend" concept.
I find it hard to think of an example where I would ever seek a singular person to do anything with. Effectively "one is minimum", whereas it often seems more common and socially acceptable to have a "one is maximum" outlook.

 

I think I see what you're saying. The more I think about it, it proabaly has a lot to do with my age group (college age) and gender (female) that makes me feel like having one main best friend is the societal norm. Of course, the overall societal goal is to have a "squad" of many friends. But I also feel pressured to pick one person and make them my best friend. Also in my age group many people around me are committing to monogamous relationships and getting married. Many of my peers have this 'quest' to find someone, make them their best friend, and then become romantically committed to that person only. And that person is their ONLY best friend. As an aromantic, a young adult, and someone who is easily overwhelmed, I get upset by small things. Things like someone disapproving of how many "best friends" I have for whatever reason. There are, of course, larger issues at hand, but this particular one has affected me most recently. I could go on about the ins-and-outs of the amatonormative pressures I feel as a young adult, but then this post would get even more jumbled than it already is. Hope this makes some sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kaseythefairy said:

Of course, the overall societal goal is to have a "squad" of many friends. But I also feel pressured to pick one person and make them my best friend. Also in my age group many people around me are committing to monogamous relationships and getting married.

If you do not share the same goal as your peers then it would probably be a bad idea to do the same kind of things as them. Even though it might be difficult to explain this to them.
 

8 hours ago, kaseythefairy said:

Many of my peers have this 'quest' to find someone, make them their best friend, and then become romantically committed to that person only. And that person is their ONLY best friend.

This sounds like the "friends first" idea some allos have. With the idea of that friendship being a stepping stone to a romantic relationship.
 

8 hours ago, kaseythefairy said:

As an aromantic, a young adult, and someone who is easily overwhelmed, I get upset by small things. Things like someone disapproving of how many "best friends" I have for whatever reason.

What I think is going on here is different definitions of the term "best friend".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of interesting responses :)
 

When thinking more about this subject I wonder if perhaps the reason that this norm is so hard to shift is because it is foundation to our modern society. If we look at hunter gatherer societies the norm seems to be more close relationships and larger group of interest than the nuclear family. Maybe it was advantageous for nation states to have the people broken down to smaller units in order to be more flexible and fulfill a role in a larger context. To have them think of themselves as individuals and act in their own self interest rather than for the best of their tribe. It's hard to get people to move where they are needed or change their way of thinking if they always have to take into account the well being of a whole group of people for everything. So our culture streamlined the family down to one sexual partner and the shared offspring. Those are still part of their tribe and every decision made has to take them into account. But we see in our society a tendency to loose even that as people divorce and choose not to have children. Society frees them to make their life choices with only consideration to themselves and do it with whoever shares their goals at the moment.

I'm testing out an extreme line of thought there. If this trend is real I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing. I'm a very individualistic person and I wouldn't want that to be stifled under the weight of a tight knit community.

 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as aros and society...man already building a ship to go to Planet X if shit goes south...y'all welcome to join me 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLDR Version:

Even though societal change would be ideal, we'll need to become more visible to more undiscovered arospec people before we can accomplish anything tangible. Let's get an army together; then we'll talk.:arocapapo:

 

Longer version:

I figure changing society is important, but it isn't the first step. It's the end goal. My first order of business is to let everyone know that aromanticism is a thing. The aros of the world need a chance to discover themselves. If they do, they'll likely fight for their own right to exist and relate. The people who are unknowingly aromantic (or asexual, but this is just an example) will be the easiest for us to reach because they have a personal stake and will likely already be questioning the allo mindset. If we're talking about such lofty goals as changing a society, I think we should first maximize our visibility to the people who most desperately need that change. Only with a unified force of many such people do we stand a chance against such a deeply-ingrained societal tradition as "The One."  

 

I didn't mean to reference The Matrix, but now that I have I'm leaving it in there.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-07-15 at 1:58 AM, RASHAAN said:

As far as aros and society...man already building a ship to go to Planet X if shit goes south...y'all welcome to join me 


Sounds good, but we can't reproduce. Because our kids wont be aro so then it's ruined. We will have to take in people from outside, like a monastery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the sound of an Aromantic monastic order. I mean like the practicing-martial-arts-at-a-mountaintop-gompa kind of monastic order. I'm not really a manually-copying-Latin-manuscripts-by-candlelight kind of monk. We could totally do archery! For the puns!

Think of the puns!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, James said:

I like the sound of an Aromantic monastic order. I mean like the practicing-martial-arts-at-a-mountaintop-gompa kind of monastic order.

I guess, the members of the Order of the Arrow will wear green robes, right?

8 hours ago, James said:

I'm not really a manually-copying-Latin-manuscripts-by-candlelight kind of monk

But the less athletically inclined members want to have something to do, too. Okay, copying Latin manuscripts is pretty pointless, today. We need something of real value! Perhaps they sift through books and movies for any aromantic characters and compile their findings in a gigantic Index Aromanticorum.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DeltaV said:

I guess, the members of the Order of the Arrow will wear green robes, right?

But the less athletically inclined members want to have something to do, too. Okay, copying Latin manuscripts is pretty pointless, today. We need something of real value! Perhaps they sift through books and movies for any aromantic characters and compile their findings in a gigantic Index Aromanticorum.

Yes to everything you just said. Except I'm pretty sure the order of the arrow is already someone else's trademark.

 

Also we could send missionaries to Los Angeles and try to convert them away from putting a love interest in all of the movies. Because sending missionaries to California definitely helped the locals last time, right? 

 

(For those of you not familiar with American Western history, The construction of Spanish missions in the 1500's usually didn't help the locals. Unless getting systematically enslaved counts as being helped.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/08/2017 at 6:54 PM, James said:

(For those of you not familiar with American Western history, The construction of Spanish missions in the 1500's usually didn't help the locals. Unless getting systematically enslaved counts as being helped.)

However, in our case, we'd actually be saving people from being systematically enslaved, a.k.a marriage :rofl: 

(just a joke: my parents are happily married, it can work out well for some people)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NullVector said:

However, in our case, we'd actually be saving people from being systematically enslaved, a.k.a marriage :rofl: 

(just a joke: my parents are happily married, it can work out well for some people)

Systemic freedom is often just as bad as systemic enslavement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked to see if the name was available and it isn't. The Order of the Arrow is a semi-secret society that's technically part of the Boy Scouts of America. I've actually met one and he was really cool. However, the organization has come under fire for appropriating various Native American symbols customs. Sort of a well-meaning accidental racism. The OA, as they call it, tries to maintain a sense of mystery in its rituals, but allows parents and religious leaders to know what happens to avoid concerning them. I guess they seem mostly harmless, but they probably won't share the name with us. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, James said:

The Order of the Arrow is a semi-secret society that's technically part of the Boy Scouts of America.

Order of the Emerald Arrow, then!

 

That name can't be already taken, right??

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emerald arrow is a cultivar of the Bosnian pine tree, Pinus heldreichii. The name may be kinda taken, but that sounds like we just found out what to plant at our monastery. It's supposed to be fairly hardy and popular in gardens. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems nothing gets past you! :)

 

Google Image Search for “Emerald Arrow” (wanted to know what the tree looks like) yielded also this:

 

D4239671r.jpg

 

“A diamond and emerald arrow brooch” ca. 1925 – auctioned at Christie's for 1,016 £ !

A bit greener perhaps and it would be a good badge of the order. Oh, and it shouldn't be made of true emeralds, to become a bit more affordable. ;)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or just go reaaaaallly expensive and use tsavorites instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-08-02 at 10:20 AM, James said:

I like the sound of an Aromantic monastic order. I mean like the practicing-martial-arts-at-a-mountaintop-gompa kind of monastic order. I'm not really a manually-copying-Latin-manuscripts-by-candlelight kind of monk. We could totally do archery! For the puns!

Think of the puns!

 

On 2017-08-02 at 6:42 PM, DeltaV said:

I guess, the members of the Order of the Arrow will wear green robes, right?

But the less athletically inclined members want to have something to do, too. Okay, copying Latin manuscripts is pretty pointless, today. We need something of real value! Perhaps they sift through books and movies for any aromantic characters and compile their findings in a gigantic Index Aromanticorum.

 

I like it! But we must also have a filial in the city. Because I don't want to live on a mountain top. There we could do some community work and also organize all the missionaries. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×