families

Mon May 22 13:27:46 PDT 1995

r ansteorra-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 1995 14:42:47 -0500
Received: from [129.116.184.8] (lilith.ots.utexas.edu [129.116.184.8]) by matrix.
eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA25242 for <ansteorra at eden.com>; Mon, 22
 May 1995 14:42:41 -0500
Message-Id: <v01510104abe67a3b2743@[129.116.184.8]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 14:42:44 -0500
To: ansteorra at eden.com
From: litch at eden.com (R. Michael Litchfield)
Subject: families
Sender: owner-ansteorra at eden.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ansteorra at eden.com
-------------- next part --------------
     Ah, now.  A more civilized missive.  One that can be reasonably answered.  
     Your concern is well founded in most cases, except in the SCA.  While we 
     have those few that feel they must force all to adhere to the WASP 
     viewpoint of the "family"; we have many, many more who do not.  

     By your definition, you exclude the multiple partner families that exist 
     today.  Your definition does not allow for same sex partners.  If they 
     haven't taken a child to raise, they are not a family?  I don't think so.  
     Want to try that definition again?  Ulrike

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: families
Author:  litch at eden.com (R. Michael Litchfield) at smtp
Date:    5/22/95 2:42 PM

So why am I being so argumentative over something that was in all probabilty an 
honest mistake?

Because this is something that is important.

The SCA (and the US) has moved steadily to the right since I first started 
playing. It has become signifigantly more conservative in many aspects, 
some I agree with, most I tend to violently disagree with.

One aspect of special concern for me is what constitutes a family. While 
the SCA was not the first place I encountered some of the alternative 
definitions it was often the first place I encountered people putting them 
into practice. Even here non mainstream (if we assume that single parents 
are mainstream as everybody but some delusional republicans must) families 
are fairly rare and there are a lot of people who would be much more 
comfortable if they did not have to deal with the existance of such things.

When a group gives a discount to a family of specific sort, they make it 
harder on any family which does not fit that mold. It discourages 
diversity, and just add on just a bit more hassle to people who are already 
hassled to begin with.

I tend to define a family as the person or persons who have taken on the 
responsibilty of raising a child and try not to make any other constraints 
on
that.

-Michael