Talk:Relationship anarchy/Archive 1

anarchy, or anarchism?
Figuring that whoever created this (let's face it) stub doesn't know (or care to know) the difference, I have changed the initial use of "anarchist" from anarchy to anarchism. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, some effort could have been made to link to anarchism which actually would associate the RA claim to descent from Free Love belief with anarchist thought. Can RA face that their turf might be much-trod? See also Anarchism and issues related to love and sex, Anarcha-feminism, Queer anarchism. Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

going to the source
Seems I'm one of the few who remembers how to Google. Here's the (moribund) blog of Andie Nordgren, credited as creating Relationship Anarchy. Well, okay, it's an archive of 2010-2012 entries, but it's in English, and it leads off with the content of the original 2006 pamphlet, Relationsanarki (which was in Swedish, FWIW). http://log.andie.se/

This glaring oversight does lead me to feel that this WP article is little more than fanboy arm-waving, showing no real interest in providing thoroughgoing objective knowledge, Weeb Dingle (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RA as polyamory?
Here's why I believe that RA either is NOT "a form of polyamory" as claimed, OR it needs a MUCH clearer definition here.

My understanding of RA — from this article — is as follows:
 * all relationships are equal
 * to divide relationships into categories according to cultural norms is artificial
 * categories exist only to create hierarchal shelves, setting one relationship as somehow "better" than another
 * categories are socially divisive, perhaps to disempower The People as a whole


 * an intimate relationship involves "physical and/or emotional intimacy" and/or sexual intimacy
 * "intimate relationship" is an artificial category
 * to elevate one relationship over others merely because it's somehow intimate is to derogate those others

Weeb Dingle (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * to be polyamorous is defined as "to have or want intimate relationships with more than one person"
 * THEREFORE RA cannot be a subset of polyamory
 * This is not intended to pick on RA itself (which IMO has possibilities as a modern take on the now-quaint Free Love movement) but to question the basis for assertions made in WP. Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

"Anarchy Heart logo"
This symbol has been associated with Folk Punk since the late 80s, and I'm confused as to why this co-opting of an existing symbol isn't mentioned here (as I think it should be) and why said symbol was removed from the Folk Punk page almost as soon as it appears here. Surely the use of the symbol is more established for the genre than it is for a niche, fledgling form of Anarchism? Columbinecatholic (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Strategies and Facilitation"
This section needs work. What is a "Queer Desire Party- with “no” round!" and why the exclamation point? I love that this section is here but all of the strategies could use some context. treasuretron (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RadicalRelationsHeart.svg

Methods for discussing relationship anarchy
This section reads like some sort of guide for practitioners or advocates, contrary to WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NPOV. It needs rewriting at minimum, possibly even removing. Additionally it is mostly unsourced and not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

"movement"?
IMO, it's an overreach to refer to something so tenuous as RA as anything even approaching "a movement." For that matter, I don't feel that overarching polyamory is "a movement."

It's been years since my sociology classes, but per Definitions under Social movement, many are of the belief that in order to be "a movement," there must be public action of some sort

RAs talk amongst themselves, and within sympathetic groups. The term has (apparently) been around since 2010, but it's a bit of a stretch to date the "movement" from that point.

Sizing RA up against Charles Tilly's definition of "social movement," I can find no record that there has ever been general RA activity insofar as "a sustained, organized public effort making collective claims of target authorities" or any "processions, vigils, rallies, demonstrations, petition drives, statements to and in public media, and pamphleteering" or "participants' concerted public representation of worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitments on the part of themselves and/or their constituencies."

Sidney Tarrow defines movements as "collective challenges [to elites, authorities, other groups or cultural codes] by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities."

RAs have defined no target authorities, and I don't know that they've ever taken any sort of public stand.

There are no estimates here of the numbers of actual participating RA members, or even a description of how one goes about becoming an official Relationship Anarchist. It would be deeply disingenuous to defend this glaring lack by dodging behind some sort of "hey, it's anarchy, man!" Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

movement
How does one go about becoming and official Black Lives Matter member? Or an official Feminist? Or an official LGBTQ-member? I think some of the critique here has merit, but this particular sub-point is silly. There's any number of groups that are definitely "movements" that are nevertheless not *organizations* with a formal membership-process.

Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)