I think that’s actually a good comparison for lackluster ace “resource” blogs, whose mods appear to prioritize spreading the Good News of “asexuality is legit” and that’s about the long and the short of it, like Christians who are invested in spreading the Good News of “Jesus is Christ” but aren’t really invested in getting into the material applications of that viewpoint, like, say, the redistribution of wealth and the elimination of poverty.
What I’m saying is that a lot of designated ace blogs (meaning, ace generalist blogs, not personal blogs of aces) don’t do much in the way of useful work, organizing, or resource creation. And that’s lamentable.
[hypothetical examples of what I mean]
Some other passages I’ve liked from A Theology of Liberation:
Notes on “types of attractions as orientations” Part 1: neoliberal identity politics, Part 2: problems of orientation *independence*, & Part 3: QP relationships and/not platonic attraction
So many things. So many things I’ve been thinking about but wasn’t able to say.
- quoiromantic, wtfromantic, no I don’t have a romantic orientation, stop asking
- ace/q***r-debate rhetoric based on sorting aces by romantic orientation (stop)
- the assumption that, in absence of attraction, no one would want or form committed same-genderish relationships (wrong, wrong, hello hi, other people like me exist)
- identity-policing & “no you must have precisely zero of X type of attraction in order to ID as Y” & otherwise = gray
- insistence on a One and Only singular definition of an identity based solely on one Platonic factor
- respectability ploys of isolating variables & “this is completely independent from…” “this has nothing to do with…” (other experiences, gender, race)
- get away from “pin down what specific types of feelings and attractions you have, this is The Most Important and all we do here” & get into pursuing the political implications
- asterisk nominal recognition = not enough; the endgame should be changing the entire rule set and rebuilding it from the ground up
- actually naming and critiquing neoliberalism in the ace community
Some really good reads. Check ’em out.
I know RZ’s style is pretty jargon-y and academic though, so feel free to ask me (or them! I’ve seen them do this too) to translate any sections and talk it over with you.
For reasons established in my previous post
which got unexpectedly long, this post will set out to explain the definition of religion that makes the most sense to me. This is one way of conceiving of it, not what religion “is” in a hard-and-fast sense, because I don’t think a loose cultural category such as religion can have some true abstract essential nature in any way independent from our own perceptions. And please don’t come talking to me about “faith”; I’ve already dissected the concept of faith.